[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Simple] Inter-domain Requirements for SIMPLE

Orit,

First, thanks for working on these. This is a topic that many of us have been thinking about for some time, and as our current batch of work is finishing up, I think now is a good time to start visiting this topic seriously.

I think many of the requirements are met by existing SIP/SIMPLE capabilities, if you treat PS-A and PS-B as "state agents", in the sense that they would terminate presence subscriptions from users in their own domains, and generate their own subscriptions to the peer servers to obtain presence information. There are some naming and identification issues associated with that, which we can deal with when it comes time to mechnanism. But, with that model, many of your requirements are met.

I didnt understand a few of them, however. In particular:

User-to-User Requirements
   o  Explicit Domain Identifier: It MUST be possible to unambiguously
      determine which domain the user belongs to from the userĘs
      identifier (without requiring complicated lookups).

I dont understand this. Doesnt the sip URI have this property?


   o  Meaningful User Identifier: The user name MUST be meaningful to
      the end-users (e.g. not a random global identifier).
I dont think its our job to mandate the format or conventions of names allocated in a domain. I.e., we cannot force domains to allocate user parts of the form jonathan_d_rosenberg@example.com. If example.com wants to assign me hha7sd66ai@example.com, that's their business.

We do have to be able to carry display names suitable for human consumption, which is met by SIP already.

Regarding these:

 A user to all users in other domain: A user in one domain MUST be
      able to allow and disallow its presence visibility to all users in
      a specific other domain.
   o  Per user granularity: A user in one domain MUST be able to allow
      and disallow its presence visibility to a specific user in a
      remote domain.
   o  Asymmetric user relationships: Users in different domains MUST be
      able to allow or disallow their presence visibility to each other
      independently for each direction.
they are already met by the presence rules XML format that we have been working on for some time, AFAIK.

Regarding these:

 o  Peer-to-peer authentication in federation scenario: Users MAY be
      able to authenticate each other.
   o  Peer-to-peer authentication in open public interconnection
      scenario:  Users SHOULD be able to authenticate each other.
Are you talking about authenticating subscriptions? Notifications? Presence documents?


Generally, I think the main part of the problem here, in terms of whats not currently solved, are these "optimizations" for reducing traffic between domains.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.



Orit Levin wrote:

Guys!
We have submitted a requirements document for secure and efficient transfer of presence information over inter-domain links.
Please, take a look at our thoughts and suggestions:
/http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levin-simple-interdomain-reqs-00.txt/
We look forward to your feedbacks on how we can enhance SIMPLE to support these directions.
Thanks,
Orit.
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

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