Subject: [Simple] presence-02 comments

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:47:36 -0500

A few comments, mostly nits. Apologies if these repeat comments from 
others(If so, I claim senility):

Section 2:

PUA definition (nit) definition states a PUA sends REGISTERS. Since this 
islikely to change with a new publication method we might should drop 
the phrase.

PA definition says "Typically colocated with proxy/registrar" This is a 
possible configuration, but not necessarily typical.

5.3: reads: "In general, subscriptions will normally
    not contain bodies. The request URI, which identifies the presentity,
    combined with the event package name, are sufficient for user
    presence."

suggested (remove redundant "In general" and fix singular/plural 
mismatch: "Subscriptions will normally not contain bodies. The request 
URI, which identifies the presentity,combined with the event package 
name, is sufficient for user presence."

5.4: Language appears to say that presence only gets changed by
one of the example events.

p7 paragraph2: I thought we were removing "polite blocking" as an 
explicitly required feature. In any case, I would not consider it part 
of the minimum allowed set of authorization decisions.

5.10: Forking (NIT): text mentions that each PA responds with 202 response.
Should be 2xx class response, since 200's are also allowed.

6.4: Call state subscription: While I assume this is non-normative,
I am afraid its presence will confuse people.

7.3: Refers to PGP authentication in SIP. Hasn't that been removed from
SIP?