Re: [Simple] Few questions on <draft-ietf-simple-presence-10.txt>
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Mon, 01 December 2003 16:17 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16365; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:17:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQqja-0004dW-00; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:17:14 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQqjZ-0004dT-00; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:17:13 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQqjN-00083J-8z; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:17:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQqjJ-00082y-1U for simple@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:16:57 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16359 for <simple@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:16:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQqjI-0004aA-00 for simple@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:16:56 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQqjH-0004Ck-00 for simple@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:16:55 -0500
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2003 08:19:09 +0000
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB1GGHAt005242; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cisco.com ([161.44.79.239]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AEI14843; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:16:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3FCB6950.7000602@cisco.com>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Song, Youngsun" <ysong@telcordia.com>
CC: Simple WG <simple@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Simple] Few questions on <draft-ietf-simple-presence-10.txt>
References: <7B762A7337179544B02B707FAC7F6F1903C98FC1@rrc-its-exs03.mail.saic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple>, <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions <simple.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:simple@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple>, <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/simple/>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:16:16 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Song, Youngsun wrote: > Hi, > > In <draft-ietf-simple-presence-10.txt>, it mentions > "application/cpim-pidf+xml" as the presence data format content type. > However in <draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-08.txt>, it defines the presence > content type as "application/pidf+xml". Are these different types of content > types? Looks like a bug to me. > In Section 6.11.2, Migration, of <draft-ietf-simple-presence-10.txt>, it > seems that the migration is likely to be used to migrate subscriptions from > PA to PUAs. At the end of the section, it states "A PA SHOULD NOT migrate > the subscription if it is composing aggregated presence documents received > from multiple PUA." Since it is likely that there will be multiple PUAs > where the PA will act as State Agent for presence, it seems that the > subscription migration is not likely to occur. Is this right? I am trying to > understand the usage of migration for presence. There are many ways to implement this, and I'm not sure I understand what one you have in mind. One way that seems likely is for there to be a single PA acting on behalf of many presentities. For each presentity there may be zero, one, or more PUAs providing presence documents to be composed. The decision the PA must make about migrating a subscription needs to be made independently for each presentity. If the PA is aggregating presence from multiple PUAs on behalf of a particular presentity, then it would be unwise to migrate the presence subscriptions to one of the PUAs. But it can be fine to do so for a presentity that has only one PUA reporting. Clearly there are logistical problems if a second PUA comes online when subscriptions have been migrated to what had been the only PUA. Either that case needs to be avoided by configuration, or else it must be detected so that subscriptions can be migrated back to the PA. Paul _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
- [Simple] Few questions on <draft-ietf-simple-pres… Song, Youngsun
- Re: [Simple] Few questions on <draft-ietf-simple-… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Simple] Few questions on <draft-ietf-simple-… Jonathan Rosenberg