[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sip-implementors
Subject:    Re: [Sip-implementors] =?iso-8859-1?q?XCAP=3A_Why_=22org=2Eopenmobile?=
From:       Iñaki_Baz_Castillo <ibc () aliax ! net>
Date:       2009-06-16 22:40:32
Message-ID: 200906170040.33074.ibc () aliax ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

El Miércoles, 17 de Junio de 2009, David Viamonte escribió:
> Hi,
>
>  there are several features in OMA Presence Authorization Rules, which are
> not covered in RFC 4745 / 5025:
>
>  - Reference to external elements
>  - A specific condition element to support processing of anonymous requests
>  - A specific condition element to support a default policy
>  - New Presence Attributes (provide-willingness,
> provide-network-availability, provide-session-participation,
> provide-registration-state, provide-barring-state, ...). - Definition of
> additional logic in the processing of conditions and rules, as defined by
> OMA XDM
>
>  I am not sure such substantial changes (e.g.: as an example the first one
> was explicitly de-scoped in IETF "pres-rules") would all fit well within
> RFC 5025 framework and the intention of section 8 in particular, even if
> from the XML schema perspective, "thechnically speaking" they could perhaps
> (?) be amended within a new XML namespace, still keeping the IETF AUID.
> That was, for example, the case of OMA Resource Lists, where a very minor
> extension is defined by OMA, and hence the overall document reuses IETF
> defined "rls-services" AUID.

Thanks for so great explanation.

However, I wonder why so many new features are needed when most of the devices 
don't implement XCAP yet. The fact I don't consider useful all the new 
features described above. Is it really implemented "somewhere"?

Thanks.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]