Re: [Simple] Updated RPID

[Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at cisco.com>]

I have a question about how the data model xml type extensions for 
<person> and <device> interact with the status and characteristic types 
defined in various places.

(This may just be a matter of my ignorance of XML details.)

The data model defines a number of abstract types. I infer that the only 
elements that are permitted as capabilities or status of person or 
device must have themselves been declared as extensions to the 
corresponding abstract type.

If that is true, then it would seem to rule out the same type being used 
in more than one of <tuple>, <person>, or <device>. This would minimally 
mean that every type defined in RPID will need to be revised to specify 
which container it is intended for.

This also means that we can't have types that are intended to be useful 
in more than one of these. (E.g. idle.)

	Paul

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> Dag Ekengren wrote:
>
> =
>
> > I think the relationship between the latest RPID document and the 
> > presence
> > data model document is a little unclear.
>
>
> Yes. Keep in mind that -04 was not yet submitted. Henning and I have yet 
> to completely align on how it reconclides with the data model. I am 
> working on getting input to him to make sure it completely lines up. The 
> issue you are raising below is correct, and will be cleaned up.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan R.
>
> > In RPID, it says that the "<activities> element describes what the
> > presentity is currently doing, expressed as an enumeration of <activity>
> > elements". I think this clearly belongs to the <person> element in the
> > presence data model. In the examples in the RPID draft, the activities
> > element is applied to service tuples. Maybe it should be mentioned that
> > these should be used on the <person> element?
> >
> > Wouldn't it be a good idea to include the definitions of <person> and
> > <device> in the RPID draft?
> >
> > /Dag
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs at cs.columbia.edu] Sent: den 9 
> > oktober 2004 22:04
> > To: Simple WG
> > Subject: [Simple] Updated RPID
> >
> > I will shortly submit
> >
> > http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/rpid/draft-ietf-simple-rpid-04.html
> >
> > Please let me know if I failed to incorporate conclusions of the 
> > recent discussion. The major changes are the removal of tuple-type 
> > element, the re-naming and more precise syntax of the <idle> element 
> > (now, <user-input>) and the addition of a <timezone> element. The data 
> > model draft is cited.
> >
> > Henning
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Simple mailing list
> > Simple at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple


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