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 <i...@aliax.net> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
