RE: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-simple-winfo-package-05

["Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>]

I think this RFC Editor note was mistakenly associated with that draft,
actually. This RFC Editor note belongs with draft-ietf-simple-presence
(which has the appropriate text in the first paragraph of section 5). 

I don't recall simple-winfo-package having an RFC Editor note.

- J

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joyce Reynolds [mailto:jkrey@ISI.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:52 PM
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-simple-winfo-package-05
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> The "Protocol Action" the IESG sent out for
> draft-ietf-simple-winfo-package-05 included an RFC Editor note.  It
> requested that the RFC Editor replace the first paragraph in Section
> 5.  The text in the RFC Editor note does not correspond with this
> document.  The first paragraph in Section 5 reads:
> 
>    5.  Example
> 
>       The following is an example of watcher information for a
>       presentity, who is a professor.  There are two watchers, userA
>       and userB.
> 
> According to the "Protocol Action" announcement, the text is:
> 
>       A presentity is identified in the most general way through a
>       presence URI [3], which is of the form pres:user@domain.  These
>       URIs are protocol independent.  They are resolved to protocol
>       specific URIs, such as a SIP or SIPS URI, through 
> domain-specific
>       mapping policies.
>      
> which is supposed to be changed, per the request to:
> 
>       A presentity is identified in the most general way through a
>       presence URI [3], which is of the form pres:user@domain.  These
>       URIs are protocol independent.  They are resolved to protocol
>       specific URIs, such as a SIP or SIPS URI, through 
> domain-specific
>       mapping policies maintained on the server.
>       
> Where is this text supposed to be placed?  
> 
> Thanks, Joyce
> (for RFC Editor)
> 
>