Re: [sixpac] SIP AOR/GRUU discovery for offline XMPP contacts.

[Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>]

На 18.03.11 00:38, Peter Saint-Andre написа:
> On 3/17/11 4:13 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>> На 17.03.11 21:46, Peter Saint-Andre написа:
>>> On 3/17/11 2:07 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> На 17.03.11 20:07, Peter Saint-Andre написа:
>>>>> On 3/11/11 1:44 AM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Simo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> На 11.03.11 08:43, [e-mail] написа:
>>>>>>>> Would it make sense to also allow uploading and retrieving that
>>>>>>>> kind of information within a vCard? Of course, if available,
>>>>>>>> information in a presence or a message stanza should always take
>>>>>>>> precedence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This approach might be most straightforward. See
>>>>>>> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0054.html which I believe will be
>>>>>>> superseded by http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0292.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, I was also thinking about them and I guess all that we need to do
>>>>>> is indicate the elements where the AOR/GRUU would need to be stored and
>>>>>> retrieved from.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would we use the vCard4 IMPP property for this?
>>>>
>>>> Syntax-wise it looks right. Semantically RFC 4770 seems to be declaring
>>>> it as an IM or a presence address only.
>>>>
>>>> So I am wondering if this could be source of confusion for non-sixpac
>>>> clients.
>>>>
>>>> An example on page 2 seems to explicitly point that a SIP uri would be
>>>> used for SIMPLE chats and presence, and it is my understanding that most
>>>> sixpac clients would be unreachable this way.
>>>
>>> You have a point.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the TEL property is appropriate, instead:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-16#section-6.4.1
>>
>> It seems to come with a "*" cardinality so how would one distinguish
>> between the sixpac SIP uri and the regular phones? Do we define a new
>> scheme?
> 
> Do you mean that we'd need a new URI scheme to identify sixpac-aware SIP
> UAs? 

Nope, I was wondering if that's what you meant when you suggested using tel.

> That seems unnecessary.
>
> However, we could define a vcard extension for a special property.

+1

Cheers,
Emil
> 
>> Also, I am not sure how to read the following:
>>
>>     It is expected that the URI scheme will be "tel", as
>>     specified in [RFC3966]
>>
>> Does this mean that use with URI other than "tel" should be avoided?
> 
> I see no reason why a "sip" URI would be problematic, but we can ask the
> vcard folks about that.
> 
> Peter
>