Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

[SM <sm at resistor.net>]

At 01:56 07-11-2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I submitted both of the following:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-header-im-00
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-header-pres-00

Thanks.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "feature". According to RFC 2779, IM and
> presence are separate domains of functionality, which is why there is an
> im: URI scheme and a pres: URI scheme. I don't foresee other such URIs.

Quoting the drafts:

   Because almost all human users of instant messaging systems are users
   of email systems, it can be helpful for such users to specify their
   (IM/presence) URIs in the email messages they author.

Although IM and presence are separate domains of functionality, the 
proposed mail headers for them :-

  1. provides a standard location for the exchange of such information

  2. are associated with the author of the message

  3. uses similar syntax for the URI

> What are "these schemes"? What is the category under which it is
> perceived that the im: scheme and the pres: scheme are the same? Again,
> according to RFC 2779, RFC 3859, and RFC 3860, these are separate and
> distinct domains of functionality, which just happen to often be
> implemented and deployed in the same systems or services.

You are viewing the im: scheme and the pres: scheme from the point of 
view of their RFCs which is different from the functionality offered 
by the mail header.  In a previous email, you mentioned a generic 
solution.  My point is that it is better to have a generic mail 
header to encompass pres:, im: and other schemes that would use URIs 
in such a manner.

We could have, for example, the following header:

Contact-ID: pres:juliet at example.com; im:juliet at example.com

The MUA would process the header to determine whether there is a 
presence URI or IM URI and take appropriate action.

> Because it doesn't include every URI scheme under the sun? ;-)

No, it's because it doesn't contain a snail mail address to support 
legacy communication channels. :-)

Regards,
-sm 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf