Subject: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-presence-03.txt

From: "James Undery" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:31:38 +0100

Hi,

This is really late I know, and I failed to read the 02 draft at all.

Section 3. Once authenticated I'd expect a 202, once authorised I'd
expect a 200. (I've also a nit about saying "subscription is carried
as any other INVITE" I think "non-INVITE" is better, but I don't
really care about that.)

Section 5.7 The use of the word accepted to have a different meaning
to "202 Accepted", is confusing, authorised is probably better. Also I
believe polite blocking is best done with 202 I think 200 should show
I am authorised (as per previous text in this section).

Section 5.8 Should say "a NOTIFY MUST be sent after a 2xx response to
the SUBSCRIBE has been sent." i.e. s/200/2xx/

Section 5.9 first paragraph only s/200/2xx/

James Undery

---

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:14:19 -0400

Inline.

>I am authorised (as per previous text in this section).

Correct my understanding, but I thought that the 202 was intended to 
acknowledge receipt of the message, but to indicates that authorization has 
not yet occurred, but will at some unspecified time.

It could mean that the originator was authenticated, but authorization 
still occurs later.

Mike

>_______________________________________________
>simple mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: "James Undery" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:24:11 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Michael Hammer

> not yet occurred, but will at some unspecified time.

No you are correct, the problem is with CPIM compliance, where the 202
is a successful subscription and requires an immediate NOTIFY. This
means 202 is a possible means for polite blocking e.g. one scheme
could be the NOTIFY says offline (so the subscriber won't expect
authorisation some time soon) the subscription is then dropped
silently.

> It could mean that the originator was authenticated, but

Indeed.

James