Re: [Geopriv] comments for <draft-ietf-geopriv-pres-01>

From: Behcet Sarikaya ^lt;behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Aug 23 2004 - 22:10:37 EDT

Here are my comments:
In Sec. 2, the draft refers to Scenario 3 of RFC 3693 in order to derive
the architecture in Sec. 3.
However, in one place in Sec. 3 it says that a presentity corresponds to
Location Server, and then later on it says CPP
does not define any concept similar to a Location Server. In the next
paragraph it refers to provisioning in a presence
server.
 
Some clarification to the above will be appreciated.

Tschofenig Hannes wrote:

>hi all,
>
>some minor comments for the <draft-ietf-geopriv-pres-01> draft:
>
>- section 1 says:
>
>"
>This document shows the applicability of presence to Geopriv, and
> argues that a presence protocol might be a suitable using protocol
> for Geopriv.
>"
>
>in the meanwhile there is no doubt that the presence protocol is a suitable
>geopriv using protocol.
>
>i suggest to change it into:
>
>"
>This document shows the applicability of presence to Geopriv, and
> shows that a presence protocol is a suitable using protocol
> for Geopriv.
>"
>
>- section 3 says:
>
>"
>Rather than
> reinventing work that has been done elsewhere in the IETF, Geopriv
> should if at all possible reuse this existing work by specifying
> presence protocols as Geopriv using protocols. Moreover, the
> existing foundational presence tools developed in IMPP, such as PIDF,
> have immediate applicability to the efforts underway in Geopriv to
> develop objects for sharing location information.
>"
>
>geopriv has reused existing work. therefore i suggest to change it to:
>
>
>"
>Rather than
> reinventing work that has been done elsewhere in the IETF, Geopriv
> has reused this existing work by specifying
> presence protocols as one Geopriv using protocol. Moreover, the
> existing foundational presence tools developed in IMPP, such as PIDF,
> have immediate applicability to the efforts underway in Geopriv to
> develop objects for sharing location information.
>"
>
>
>- section 4 says:
>
>"
>PIDF is an extensible format. It defines an XML element for
> representing the status of a presentity (the status element), and
> gives some guidance on how this element might be extended.
>While the
> authors of PIDF viewed geographical location as a potential category
> of presence information, PIDF currently defines no way to do so.
>"
>
>change it to:
>
>"
>PIDF is an extensible format. It defines an XML element for
> representing the status of a presentity (the status element), and
> gives some guidance on how this element might be extended.
>As one such extension PIDF has been extended to carry location information
>and a basic rule set [PIDF-LO].
>"
>
>ciao
>hannes
>
>

--behcet

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:10:37 -0700

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 23 2004 - 23:14:58 EDT