Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 30 Sep 2015, at 3:25, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:

> It might be reasonable to punt this to the implementation to decide, 
> with some guidance about what to do if you can't immediately send a 
> "real" NOTIFY. And on reflection, this gets tangled up with 
> authorization--the "pending" NOTIFY is more to say the authorization 
> has not yet been determined. If the subscriber is known to be 
> authorized, then rather than a "pending" NOTIFY it might just send a 
> normal NOTIFY with some default presence state, then send the real 
> presence when it gets it. (The subscriber's user experience might be a 
> to initially see the entity as "closed" then quickly transition to 
> "open”.
>
>
> You could still send an empty NOTIFY with subscription state 
> “active”, to indicate that the it has been allowed by the policy, 
> but there is no presence state to show at this moment. How to 
> interpret that is of course implementation specific.

Also true.

Ben.