Re: [VCARDDAV] PID - local and global values?

Simon Perreault <> Fri, 09 July 2010 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9DF3A6A68 for <>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 06:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.296
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.296 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.304, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nVeS8DbRV9gf for <>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 06:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6983A69BF for <>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 06:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:b5fc:5c3:346a:9a09]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94BF220D1A for <>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 09:27:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:25:03 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100621 Fedora/3.0.5-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] PID - local and global values?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF vcarddav wg mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:27:46 -0000

On 2010-07-08 22:09, Kevin Wu Won wrote:
> The draft-11 says this:
> (1) "Two PID values for which the first fields are equivalent represent
> the same local value."
> What is the meaning of "same local value"?  Does this term mean anything
> significant besides its use in the next sentence?:

No, its only use is for the next sentence.

I will change the sentence to "Two PID values for which the first fields
are equivalent are said to represent the same local value." to make it
clearer that we are just making stuff up as we go.

> (2) "Two PID values representing the same local value and for which the
>   second fields point to CLIENTPIDMAP properties whose second field URIs
> are equivalent (as specified in [RFC3986], Section 6) also represent the
> same global value."
> Given (1) and (2), how can this statement be true?:
> (3) "For example, PID value "5.1", in the first vCard below, and PID
> value "6.2", in the second vCard below, represent the same global value."
> The PID 5.1's first field is 5 and the PID 6.2's first field is 6.
> Therefore by (1), they do not represent the same local value.  By (2),
> in order to represent the same global value, the PIDs must represent the
> same local value, so 5.1 and 6.2 can't represent the same global value.
>  How can (3) be true then?

You're right! This will be fixed in -12.

> In general, I don't understand the point of the local value field.  As a
> client implementor, it seems that the only thing I have to store in the
> contacts database is the UID of each property, found by dereferencing
> through the CLIENTPIDMAP.  The rest of the PID-related fields in the
> vCard can be generated from this when it comes time to export.  Is that
> right?

No. Multiple properties may have the same global context, i.e. they have
been created on the same device. But the local value differentiates
between these properties. The example in section 7.2.4 shows multiple
properties with the same global context but different local values.

NAT64/DNS64 open-source -->
STUN/TURN server        -->
vCard 4.0               -->