RE: [Simple] Appear Offline

>Does it make sense?

Yes. The presence source needs to publish status 'closed' in order to
appear to be offline.

Cheers,
Krisztian

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext simple-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:simple-bounces@ietf.org] 
>Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:04 PM
>To: sunqian@huawei.com
>Cc: simple@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: [Simple] Appear Offline
>
>Hi
>
>I've been thinking about it, and my previous suggestion (do not publish
>anything) is not correct. I agree with David Viamonte, that if 
>you want to appear offline you simply set your status to closed. 
>
>You want to appear offline, which means that you want to be 
>able to use IM service, but you do not want to be seen. 
>Setting your presence status to "closed" should not have 
>impact on your usage of IM. So I think you do not need "appear 
>offline" option in presence document. When you indicate to 
>your IM client that you want to appear offline, it will set 
>presence status of IM service tuple to closed while keeping 
>your online.
>
>Does it make sense?
>
>Silvestr
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Qian Sun [mailto:sunqian@huawei.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:46 AM
>>To: 'Robert Sparks'
>>Cc: simple@ietf.org
>>Subject: RE: [Simple] Appear Offline
>>
>>Dear all,
>>I have received several different answers so far:
>>1. The first one is from "Presence Authorization Rules" as Robert 
>>indicated,
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-presence-
>>rules-09.txt
>>It uses a specific Action in presence rules, i.e. <actions><sub-
>>handling>polite-block</sub-handling></actions>, to "tell the server to
>>place the subscription into the "active" state, and to produce a
>presence
>>document that indicates that the presentity is unavailable.  A
>reasonable
>>document would exclude device and person information elements, and 
>>include only a single service whose basic status is set to closed."
>>
>>2. The second one is from IM SIMPLE of OMA, it looks like what David 
>>replied.
>>"The IM subscriber SHALL be shown to his contacts with 
>presence status 
>>"offline" to his contacts when the "invisible" option is switched on."
>>"Upon receiving a service setting request containing the 
><vis-settings> 
>>element, as defined in Appendix E, from an IM User the IM Server SHALL
>act
>>as a Presence Source."
>>"In the case when the value of the active attribute of the 
><vis-status> 
>>element is "closed", the IM Server SHALL perform the publication of 
>>presence information as defined in [OMA-Pres-Spec] "Publication of
>presence
>>information". The IM Server: SHALL set the value of
>"Application-specific
>>Availability for IM" Presence information element to unavailable"
>>
>>3. I did saw some products had realized this feature using <note>
>element.
>>:)
>>4. Do not publish your presence information, very simple!
>>
>>Maybe we can also use "transformations" to archive this job,
>><transformations><provide-services><hidden/></provide-
>>services></transformations>, this transformation turns the status of
>all
>>service into "closed". It looks not bad.
>>
>>Anyway, should we do something here to avoid confusion and potential
>IOP
>>issues?
>>
>>Best Regard,
>>Qian
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Simple mailing list
>Simple@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple