Re: [Simple] Quests reg Presence Processing Model and RPID..

[Jonathan Rosenberg <[e-mail]>]

responses inline.

Girish Vasvani wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Am new to this mailing list, joined just today, have several questions..
> 
> 1. How do I search this mailing list ? I couldn't find any search link 
> on this mailing list page.

http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-ietf-simple-presence-data-model-05.txt 
has an index, not searchable though.

> 
> 2. Several items were not clear to me while reading "Presence Processing 
> Model" draft from Rosenberg (01 version which is the latest).
> 
>       a. Can Presence Server (PA) provide different presentity status 
> based on who the watcher is ? If yes, is this change made during 
> filtering (Watcher or Privacy) or during composition Or, it's left upto 
> the implementer of PA. Or, PA never makes such change per watcher basis ?

This is one of the things we want to make possible. Exactly how to model 
this - as a composition operation, or as something different, is still 
not decided and probably one of the biggest open issues in the 
processing model. The current authorization policy document really 
covers privacy filtering, and focuses on removing content from a 
consolidated presence document. As such, it says nothing about providing 
different information to different watchers.

I tend to think that we need something else in the model, which allows 
for the user to specify explicit tuples as input for specific watchers, 
and then have the composition policy prefer those tuples as a general rule.


> 
>       b. I'm assuming "Raw Presence Document" in Figure 1 of this draft 
> implies a single such document. Based on individual watchers, PA could 
> generate multiple such presence doc and this step is not performed in 
> "Composition" (sec 4.2.2) !! Please, correct me if I'm wrong here.

Right now, its a single document, and it would be the same for all 
watchers. See above on a suggestion to fix.

> 
> 3. Is it possible for RPID doc to contain activity status codes etc. in 
> UTF-8 form (f.e. to support language codes that are non-English) ?

Yes. There is an element called <other> which takes a freeform string in 
  UTF-8, and also allows the xml:lang attribute to declare its language.

  In
> general, is there guide-line on PIDF/RPID and Multi-language support 
> (sorry, am not quite familiar with XML Schema + Multi-language support 
> either to deduce an answer from respective drafts).

I don't think there is much specific in RPID on handling of 
multi-language support. However, I think whats there works fine. All of 
the various values for the rpid elements - the activities for example - 
are all machine-interpreted tokens, and so can be rendered in a 
localized language as needed. Freeform stuff supports the regular xml 
character sets which are generally utf-8, and we have xml:lang 
definitions for what language it is.

Do you see a specific gap?

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[e-mail]                              FAX:   [phone]
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: [phone]
http://www.cisco.com

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple