Re: [Simple] New I-D: presence data model and its relationship to our presence work

[Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen at dynamicsoft.com>]

Thanks for the comments, Vijay. Sorry for the delay in responding. More 
inline.

Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:


> To me, a presentity has always corresponded to a human (or a
> group of humans, as in a call center); it is the presence
> state of the human we are trying to model, not the devices
> commanded by it.  Unfortunately, in  current usage, a
> presentity can be anything -- a VM server, a bot, a person,
> and so on.  In think your model is closer to a presentity
> being a user.

The model says that there is something called a presentity, and the 
attributes we ascribe to it are ones more typically associated with a 
human user. That doesnt preclude you from trying to model a bot or a VM 
server with it. You may just find that the model comes up short. I think 
thats OK. If we tried to accurately and completely model all of the 
communications systems out there, we would never be done and never do 
anything actually useable.

> (1) You note (in Section 5) that "The terminlogy here is
> confusing: we talk about the presentity as a data element
> and the presentity as the entire thing being modeled..."
> What if we used the term "actor" for the entire thing being
> modeled?  As in, "The entity attribute in the
> <presence> element is always present, and identifies the
> actor described in the document."
> Other terms: target, principal, addressee

I tend to prefer calling the whole thing presentity, primarily because 
that is closest in alignment with the model that rfc2778 presents. I 
think that the "inside" thing currently called presentity could be 
called something else; "user" is, itself, not a bad choice, since it 
conveys the most common case.

> (2) In Section 2 (Definitions), the primary difference
> between "Privacy Filtering" and "Watcher Filtering"
> appears to be who is requesting the filter to be applied.

Yes.

> The watcher is in the latter, and the presentity is in
> the former. 

Mostly. Other interested parties can provide privacy rules - the 
operator, for example, or a group. For example, my enterprise my have 
something to say about what information gets distributed.



 While you explicitly mention the watcher
> when discussing "Watcher Filtering", maybe you should
> also mention the presentity when discussing "Privacy
> Filtering."

I will add some text on who provides these filters.

> (3) Page 9, s/offering a choice to the presentity/offering
> a choice to the watcher/

fixed, thanks.


> Thanks for compiling this.  It distills in a clear fashion
> a lot of ideas we have discussed on the WG mailing list.

Thanks!

-Jonathan R.

--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
jdrosen at dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

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