RE: [Simple] Models for representing presence rules

[Adam Roach <adam at dynamicsoft.com>]

I agree with Paul and Henning that a semantic approach
is clearer and less likely to get implementations into
trouble. However, I really hope that our semantic rules
are richer than the examples given; for example:

> For us, the analagous thing would be to define rules for each 
> specific part of the presence document. For example, for the
> note, we could define three levels of privacy - to not send any
> notes, to send notes for tuples only, notes for the whole
> document, or all:
> 
> <note>tuples-only</note>

I would certainly want to do this on a finer grain than
these three enumerated values.

For example, I could easily imagine a case in which I would
set most of my co-workers permissions so that they could:

 - See my "work" presence tuple, including the note
 - See my "personal" presence tuple, but not the note

See, my work presence tuple may include something useful
like: "In meeting room 1175A", while the personal
presence tuple note might be a whimsical, if bizarre,
reference that may run afoul of EEOC rules if presented
in a work environment.

I can flesh this out later with a more robust example of
how I think this can be accomplished if the group thinks
that this is the way to go.

/a

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple