Re: [Simple] SIMPLE and OMA and 3Gpp and RCS and… (new subject)

[Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 2, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

> 2012/11/2 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[e-mail]>:
> 
>>> buddylist:
>>> --------------------
>>> sip:[e-mail] {
>>> presence-subscribe-to: true,
>>> presence-allowed: true,
>>> presence-blocked: false
>>> }
>>> 
>>> sip:[e-mail] {
>>> presence-subscribed-to: true,
>>> presence-allowed: true,
>>> presence-blocked: true
>>> }
>>> --------------------
>>> 
>>> And that's all. This is easy to render for the watcher and easy to
>>> process for the server. Single "document" with buddies and their
>>> attributes.
>>> 
>>> No need for "external references to other XCAP documents in any other
>>> server in the world", no need for generating a coredump if the same
>>> buddy is contained in "oma_my_buddies" list and "my_blocked_contacts"
>>> list and "oma_PoC_contacts" list and "oma_featured_buddies" list.
>>> 
>> 
>> This is what we did in our addressbook implementation, while maintaining compatibility to the highest possible degree.
> 
> And what is the point in "mantaining compatibility" if no other SIMPLE
> client will understand the advanced document format of your
> resource-list document? (they will probably delete it and regenerate
> it).
> 
> And, if we just need a single document (based on buddies with
> attributes) why do we need so many scattered XML/XCAP documents in the
> server? and why does the presence server need to deal with N XML
> documents and external references between them?
> 
> Why do we need a "RLS document" for presence subscription if we can
> set an attribute "presence-subscribe-to" for each buddy in our
> buddylist so the server already knows which users to subscribe to? Why
> do we need a pres-rules documents if authorization rules are given via
> buddy attributes? why do we need 95% of SIMPLE/XCAP specs if a single
> document is enough?
> 
> And why to mantain "backward compatibility" if there is NO one full
> working SIMPLE client out of walled gardens (apart from Blink which,
> finally, works well but just when using the server infrastructure
> designed for it)?
> 
> 

You misundertood. That how we did it *for now*. I never ever mentioned there shouldn't be a better way nor that this is how I (personally) would like SIMPLE presence to look like. But I can't just simply implement a solution which only works with myself. Hence the backwards compatibility.

I'd love to see a better model endorsed by SIMPLE and then happily implement it. I think we do share this goal :-)

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects