headers
wanghao 67525 | 2 Jul 2007 11:18
Favicon

FW:I-D (Updated): Clarification for 'off-line' Status Assigned by Presence Application

Dear Chairmen

I had submited a draft about 'offline'status in SIMPLE presence as below.
Can we get a time slice to presentation it on the face2face meeting in Chicago? I belive it summarized the
leak in current specification and had been discussed in mail list couple months ago.

Hope get your responding soon and thanks for coodination.

Best regards
Howard

******************************************************************************************
 This email and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for
the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way
(including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by
persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender by phone or em
ail immediately and delete it!
 *****************************************************************************************

----- 原邮件 -----
发件人: howard wang <howard.wang <at> huawei.com>
日期: 星期五, 六月 29日, 2007 下午5:09
主题: [Simple] I-D (Updated): Clarification for 'off-line' Status Assigned by Presence Application

> Hello,
> 
> I have submitted a new draft to summarize previous discussion on 
> Clarification for 'off-line' Status Assigned by Presence 
> Application. Hope state completely about the leak in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Beck01, Wolfgang | 2 Jul 2007 13:24
Favicon

AW: [P2PSIP] RE: Do we need to introduce SIMPLE into P2P torealize presence and IM services?


> Vikas Tandon [mailto:vikas.tandon <at> orgltd.com] wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure how well this goes with the SIMPLE concepts. However
doing P2P will increase the traffic between 
> the peers since every presence update needs to be sent to every buddy
in the buddylist which is heavy on the 
> mobile devices and networks. Also P2P will not help in having other
services utilize presence information. 

Presence scalability is an issue even with C/S SIP. The real difficulty
with NOTIFY is that
different watchers may see different presence documents, due to the
presentity's policies.
Off-line presence brings further complications.

Some random thoughts:

If a group of watchers receives the same presence document, an
application layer
multicast may distribute the load between devices. Could
draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message be abused for this purpose? A peer
receiving a
NOTIFY with a recipient-list forwards it to some contacts mentioned
there
(removing those contacts from the recipient-list before sending).
Possible, but
I don't want to write the Security Considerations section..

Offline presence can be done by storing a user's presence document like
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Robert Sparks | 2 Jul 2007 17:58

Re: I-D (Updated): Clarification for 'off-line' Status Assigned by Presence Application

I'm working on putting the agenda together.

As always, we'll put most emphasis on spending our meeting time  
working out open issues in
the work the group has already taken on.

I only see one message to the list in response to this draft (from  
Paul) with questions that
appear to be unanswered. At the moment, I think this draft will best  
be served by list
discussion rather than face time. If folks here disagree, let me know.

RjS

On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:18 AM, wanghao 67525 wrote:

> Dear Chairmen
>
> I had submited a draft about 'offline'status in SIMPLE presence as  
> below.
> Can we get a time slice to presentation it on the face2face meeting  
> in Chicago? I belive it summarized the leak in current  
> specification and had been discussed in mail list couple months ago.
>
> Hope get your responding soon and thanks for coodination.
>
> Best regards
> Howard
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robert Sparks | 2 Jul 2007 21:12
Favicon

Re: [P2PSIP] RE: Do we need to introduce SIMPLE into P2Ptorealize presence and IM services?

David -

He's referring to the discussion and analysis taking place in SIMPLE.
See http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-interdomain- 
scaling-analysis-00.txt
for that background.

RjS

On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:06 PM, David Barrett wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Beck01, Wolfgang [mailto:BeckW <at> t-systems.com]
>>
>> Presence scalability is an issue even with C/S SIP.
>
> Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying client-server  
> architectures
> have difficulty scaling presence-based applications?  Hasn't AIM,  
> MSN, ICQ,
> YahooIM, and basically every IM on the planet successfully  
> demonstrated that
> C/S architectures can scale presence-based applications to, well,  
> the entire
> planet?
>
> -david
>
>
> _______________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
howard wang | 3 Jul 2007 13:35
Favicon

RE: I-D (Updated): Clarification for 'off-line' Status Assigned by Presence Application

Hello, Paul

I am sorry for responding so later and my explain below begin with >>>Howard>>>.
Thanks for comments.

Best regards
Howard

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat <at> cisco.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 9:57 PM
To: Howard Wang
Cc: 'Robert Sparks'; 'Hisham Khartabil'; krisztian.kiss <at> nokia.com; simple <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Simple] I-D (Updated): Clarification for 'off-line' Status Assigned by Presence Application

I'm having a little difficulty understanding this draft. I have a few basic questions that might help:

- What is a "Fetcher"?

>>>Howard>>> For 'Fetcher' here, I try to describe such a kind of presentity --- those can actively use a
mean,  e.g. implemented by 'SUBSCRIBE', to get presence information of his watchers, whom had subscribed
already. It may be an aspect of function or partial behavior of the presentity.
>>>Howard>>> Hope explain helpful.
>>>Howard>>>

- What is "IOP"
>>>Howard>>> It is my fault not giving a definition in terminal. IOP refers to 'Interoperability', like in
OMA specification to regulate on interworking between implementations of a technology specification,
such as MSN vs. Yahoo messager.
>>>Howard>>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Song Yongchao | 5 Jul 2007 02:51
Favicon

RE: [P2PSIP] RE: Do we need to introduce SIMPLE into P2P torealize presence and IM services?

I agree with that.
The draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-
scaling-analysis-00.txt has shown the complexity and the load that the
presence server has to handle in order to provide its service.
Self-organization infrastructure may help with the scalability of C/S
presence by utilizing the processing resource of the end users.
Using an application layer multicast and uri list message should be a good
choice. 

Sure, there are many questions to be considered, including offline messages,
churn of the p2p network, the presentity's policies, the durability and
availability of the presence information in P2P network and security
considerations.

Best Regards!
Song Yongchao

-----Original Message-----
From: Beck01, Wolfgang [mailto:BeckW <at> t-systems.com] 
Sent: 2007年7月2日 19:25
To: vikas.tandon <at> orgltd.com; melodysong <at> huawei.com; simple <at> ietf.org
Cc: p2psip <at> ietf.org
Subject: AW: [P2PSIP] RE: [Simple] Do we need to introduce SIMPLE into P2P
torealize presence and IM services?

Presence scalability is an issue even with C/S SIP. The real difficulty
with NOTIFY is that
different watchers may see different presence documents, due to the
presentity's policies.
Off-line presence brings further complications.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robert Sparks | 5 Jul 2007 19:57

agenda for SIMPLE69

This is a rough first draft of an agenda for the SIMPLE meeting at  
IETF69.
We have an hour :

5m 		agenda bashing/status report/administrivia
10m	scaling analysis
20m	IM chat
10m	SIMPLE made Simple
10m	Future direction

Comments?

RjS
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sean Olson | 6 Jul 2007 01:06
Picon
Favicon

RE: [P2PSIP] RE: Do we need to introduce SIMPLE into P2Ptorealize presence and IM services?

I would be very interested to see this as well since it is not at all clear that a P2P model would change the
scaling issues in a significant way.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:hsinnrei <at> adobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:40 PM
To: Song Yongchao; Beck01, Wolfgang
Cc: vikas.tandon <at> orgltd.com; p2psip <at> ietf.org; simple <at> ietf.org
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] RE: [Simple] Do we need to introduce SIMPLE into P2Ptorealize presence and IM services?

Can anyone share a comparison for presence using P2P vs. using SIMPLE client-server?

At first glance it looks obvious that P2P SIMPLE is the answer, but an analysis would be of great help.

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Song Yongchao [mailto:melodysong <at> huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:51 PM
To: 'Beck01, Wolfgang'
Cc: vikas.tandon <at> orgltd.com; p2psip <at> ietf.org; simple <at> ietf.org
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] RE: [Simple] Do we need to introduce SIMPLE into P2Ptorealize presence and IM services?

I agree with that.
The draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-
scaling-analysis-00.txt has shown the complexity and the load that the
presence server has to handle in order to provide its service.
Self-organization infrastructure may help with the scalability of C/S
presence by utilizing the processing resource of the end users.
Using an application layer multicast and uri list message should be a good
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jonathan Rosenberg | 6 Jul 2007 01:07
Picon
Favicon

Re: [P2PSIP] RE: Do we need to introduce SIMPLE into P2Ptorealize presence and IM services?

There are definitely a lot of questions to be addressed in making SIMPLE
work in a p2p system.

One the question of RLS services, I would tend to think that they are
not needed in a p2p system. The whole premise of RLS services is that
the server has access to a much richer set of bandwidth and processing
resources. So, let it do the 'fan-out' work of processing the buddy list
and managing the dialogs. In a p2p model, the 'server' would be just
another client on the ring. SO there is no reason to expect that it is
any better suited to perform the task.

MOst of the issues, I think, are really around security and
authorization. Part of a presence server's role is to perform privacy
processing - to limit who can subscribe and to limit what data they can
see. In a client/server system, the presence server can perform this
role since the client trusts its server to do so. In a p2p system, would
you trust some other node in the network to execute your privacy
preferences? I think not.

So, rather, I think that, while online, a user's own user agent would
have to supply the presence for the user. While offline, they would
store a presence document that all would have access to, which indicates
some limited form of offline access. Thus, a user is their own presence
server. That eliminates the need for tools like XCAP and presence
authorization policy documents, since know the user and their presence
server are colocated.

As always, multiple devices are a challenge....

-Jonathan R.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Jonathan Rosenberg | 6 Jul 2007 01:08
Picon
Favicon

Re: winfo template package

Actually winfo is defined for all packages; thats why its a template 
package. Whether its USEFUL for any other ones - well so far presence is 
the only one people seem to care about.

-Jonathan R.

ajay.kasam <at> wipro.com wrote:
> Hi All,
>  
>  is there any other event package other than 'presence' which uses the 
> "winfo template package"??
>  
> Regards
> Ajay Kasam
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> Simple <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

--

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
jdrosen <at> cisco.com                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane