|
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. Just my .02$. Cheers, David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] XCAP: Why "org.openmobilealliance.pres-rules" instead of just "pres-rules"? From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <i...@aliax.net> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Date: 16/06/2009 22:20 El Martes, 16 de Junio de 2009, Vikram Chhibber escribió: |
_______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
