Subject: [Simple] A comment on draft-ietf-simple-chat-12

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:27:00 +0200

Hi,

a quick comment on draft-ietf-simple-chat-12 before I start its IETF LC:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-simple-chat-12

Requirement 2 says the following:

 REQ-2:  A conference participant must be able to determine the
           identities of the sender and recipient of the received IMs.

A few lines below, requirements 5 and 7 talk about participants having
nicknames, pseudonyms, real identities, and anonymous identities.

What would be a good way to rephrase requirement 2 so that it is clear
what type of identity it refers to?

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:54:43 +0100

Gonzalo,

The requirement talks on purpose about "identities" with the ambiguity 
that the word "identities" carry, meaning that we don't really specify 
whether those identities are SIP identities, tel URL identities, 
nicknames, or social security identities :-)

Then requirements 5 and 7 expand a bit more on the type of identities 
that must be supported by the system.

So, to answer your question, Req-2 deliberately leaves unspecified the 
type of identity of a sender and recipients, since this will depend on a 
number of factors, to mention a few:
- whether nicknames are supported/used.
- whether anonymity is requested.
- The type of real identity used by the user.

I still leaning towards leaving the requirement written as it is now.

/Miguel

On 20/01/2012 13:27, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:05:49 -0700

Further: I'd encourage you to use the word "identifier" because
"identity" is vague and overloaded.

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:34:49 +0200

Hi,

right, this sounds more like an identifier, because claiming that a
participant will be able to determine your identity when you are an
anonymous user is not clear at all.

In any case, I am OK with not specifying which exact identifier will be
used. However, the requirement should be clear that the vagueness was
introduced on purpose. An extra sentence should be enough for the reader
to understand what the requirement actually means.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:46:44 +0100

I agree with Peter's and Gonzalo's subsequent comment.

So, we will replace "identity" with "identifier" and clarify that the 
type of identifier is determined by the following requirements.

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:10:40 +0200

Hi Miguel Angel,

thanks. As soon as the new revision hits the archives I will initiate
the IETF LC.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:42:06 +0100

Hi:

I have just posted version -13. I have replaced "identity" with 
"identifier" in most of the occurrences throughout the document. 
Additionally, I had clarified that requirement #2 refers to the 
identifier used by the sender or recipient when he/she joined the chat room.

I think this is ready now.

BR,

        Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:03:44 +0200

Hi,

thanks. I have just requested the IETF LC.

Cheers,

Gonzalo