Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

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

 



At 01:56 07-11-2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I submitted both of the following:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-header-im-00

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-header-pres-00

Thanks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "feature". According to RFC 2779, IM and
presence are separate domains of functionality, which is why there is an
im: URI scheme and a pres: URI scheme. I don't foresee other such URIs.

Quoting the drafts:

   Because almost all human users of instant messaging systems are users
   of email systems, it can be helpful for such users to specify their
   (IM/presence) URIs in the email messages they author.

Although IM and presence are separate domains of functionality, the proposed mail headers for them :-

  1. provides a standard location for the exchange of such information

  2. are associated with the author of the message

  3. uses similar syntax for the URI

What are "these schemes"? What is the category under which it is
perceived that the im: scheme and the pres: scheme are the same? Again,
according to RFC 2779, RFC 3859, and RFC 3860, these are separate and
distinct domains of functionality, which just happen to often be
implemented and deployed in the same systems or services.

You are viewing the im: scheme and the pres: scheme from the point of view of their RFCs which is different from the functionality offered by the mail header. In a previous email, you mentioned a generic solution. My point is that it is better to have a generic mail header to encompass pres:, im: and other schemes that would use URIs in such a manner.

We could have, for example, the following header:

Contact-ID: pres:juliet@xxxxxxxxxxx; im:juliet@xxxxxxxxxxx

The MUA would process the header to determine whether there is a presence URI or IM URI and take appropriate action.

Because it doesn't include every URI scheme under the sun? ;-)

No, it's because it doesn't contain a snail mail address to support legacy communication channels. :-)

Regards,
-sm

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]