RE: [Simple] Appear Offline

["Vikas Tandon" <[e-mail]>]

If the Facet header is present in a particular PUBLISH, the buddy ids for
which this PUBLISH is valid will also be there. This way the authorization
rules can be set at the Notifier (Presence Server). E.g. if [e-mail]
sends a publish with status closed with [e-mail] in the facet
header, then [e-mail] will see [e-mail] as offline while
others may see him as online).

We've implemented this and works just fine. Would be great to hear other's
views.

Regards,
Vikas

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 5:26 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Simple] Appear Offline

Hi Qian,

Sources may publish multiple tuples (one with status 'open', one with status
'closed') and set authorization rules appropriately.

Cheers,
Krisztian 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext sunqian 32328 [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 8:35 AM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [Simple] Appear Offline
>
>Hi,
>Sometimes a user just wants to appear offline to some specific persons, 
>not all of his buddies, especially not the person who is communicating 
>with the user.
>
>How to realize this feature?
>
>Best Regards,
>Qian Sun
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: [e-mail]
>Date: Sunday, April 15, 2007 1:51 pm
>Subject: 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 [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
>> >Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:04 PM
>> >To: [e-mail]
>> >Cc: [e-mail]
>> >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 [[e-mail]]
>> >>Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:46 AM
>> >>To: 'Robert Sparks'
>> >>Cc: [e-mail]
>> >>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>, 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
>> >[e-mail]
>> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>> >
>> 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Simple mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>

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



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