Subject: [Simple] New I-Ds on partial notification

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:34:55 +0200

Hi,

Here are links to two new drafts which deal with partial presence
notifications.
Requirements are discussed here:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lonnfors-simple-presinfo-deliv
-reqs-00.txt
A Presence service implemented using SIMPLE has some constraints for 
delivering presence information to devices with low data processing 
capabilities, small display, and limited battery power. Other 
limitations can be caused by the interface between the terminal and 
the network, i.e. over radio links with high latency and low 
bandwidth. This memo presents requirements for a solution that aids 
in reducing the impacts of those constrains and increasing 
efficiency.

And the actual solution is described here:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lonnofors-simple-partial-notif
y-00.txt
A Presence service implemented using SIMPLE has some constraints for 
delivering presence information to devices with low data processing 
capabilities, small display, and limited battery power. Other 
limitations can be caused by the interface between the terminal and 
the network, i.e. over radio links with high latency and low 
bandwidth. This memo presents a solution that aids in reducing the 
impact of those constrains and increasing efficiency, by introducing 
a new MIME-type partial notifications and a Require header 
extension partial-notification.

All comments are most welcome.

Regards
- Mikko

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:11:22 -0500

While I really don't have any objection in principal to partial 
notification (winfo uses it, as you indicate), I am trying to understand 
better the underlying motivations that are driving it.

In particular, pushing of large content (such as videos or images), 
IMHO, is still better handled by conten indirection that partial 
notifications. The reason is that the subscribing client may not want to 
pay for receipt of the content. Partial notification avoids the need to 
send it when it doesn't change, but when it does change, the susbcriber 
still needs to pay for this.

Thus, content indirection to me seems the ideal solution to the charging 
concerns you raise. Your drafts point out some kind of problem with 
content indirection, in terms of charging, which I still don't really 
understand. Can you please clarify exactly what the problem is?

On the mechanism itself, it seems that a better solution for the case 
where a tuple is deleted, is to define an XML element that explicitly 
indicates a deletion, carried in a partial update. For example:

<tuple deleted="yes" id="wsqw798jcr"/>

-Jonathan R.

[email-masked] wrote:
> _http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lonnfors-simple-presinfo-deliv-reqs-00.txt_ 
> 
> _http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lonnofors-simple-partial-notify-00.txt_ 
> 

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple