Subject: [Gen-art] Review of draft-simple-future-04

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:22:55 -0800

Overview: No objections w questions/comments

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:26:52 -0500

Thank you for your helpful comment and for taking the time to review the 
document. I've incorporated the changes suggested in the text; please 
see comment below.

Avri Doria wrote:
> - As a naive reviewer, I do not know what 'presentity' means.  
>   This should probably be defined.

A paragraph explaining the term has been added.

> 
> In 3. 
>    Implementations SHOULD ascertain
>    whether the time values in the <timed-status> elements are plausible,
>    for example, by checking whether the time stamp in a notification
>    protocol message corresponds to local time and by making sure that
>    they are fully in the past or future, both relative to real time and
>    the time contained in the optional PIDF <timestamp> element.
> 
> In which cases or under what conditions is doing this not required?

Indeed, this is mushy. The protocol specification can only really bind 
the originator, as we probably wouldn't want to require the receiver to 
discard data that might still be useful. Thus, changed to

Originators of presence information MUST
generate time values in the &lt;timed-status> elements that are fully in
the past or future relative to local real (wallclock) time and the time
information contained in the optional PIDF &lt;timestamp> element.

> 
> Question: Has all the XML been verified?

Yes.