RE: [lemonade] some questions in draft-ietf-lemonade-notifications-03

["Ben Last" <Ben.Last at emccsoft.com>]

Dave Cridland [mailto:dave at cridland.net] wrote on 09 August 2006 09:58:

>On Wed Aug  9 09:36:18 2006, Ben Last wrote:
>> Many presence systems allow the user to set their status as "offline"
>> (even though they're not really offline): the presence status is
aimed 
>> at other humans and gives the user's interruptability.  That may not 
>> be appropriate for a server to use when determining whether to send 
>> new mail notifications.
>True, but equally, most presence mechanisms have the concept of
appearing offline by default, but allowing a
>directed presence to indicate they're online to certain endpoints. In
general, I think this would be good
>enough - you'd simply have the client appear offline, but send a
directed presence for the notification server.

A very good point, but then you have the problem that every presence
client potentially needs to keep adding directed presence information
for a new endpoint for each new server use case that crops up, and the
relatively simple notion of presence as "user's interruptability"
becomes overloaded by all sorts of other semantics.  Plus the presence
information on a given client may be handled by some IM application that
doesn't have any programmatic way to add new sorts of directed presence.

Regards
Ben
EMCC Software Ltd

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