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:sunqian@huawei.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 8:35 AM
>To: simple@ietf.org
>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: krisztian.kiss@nokia.com
>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 simple-bounces@ietf.org [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 [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>, 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
>

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