Subject: [Enum] Last Call on Presence enumservice field

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:20:50 -0500

It was the consensus of the WG in Seoul that we proceed to last call with 
this document.

The intent of the last call is to solicit comments before submitting the ID 
to the IESG as a Proposed Standard.

The purpose of a working group Last Call is in the style of "speak now or
forever hold your peace" in case there are fundamental objections which have
not gotten previous or adequate discussion, or minor errors which need
correction.

Work group last call will extend for 2 weeks from today March 8  to at 
least March 22 though we can modify that if new issues come up.

Title                        : Enumservice Registration for Presence Services
         Author(s)       : J. Peterson
         Filename        : draft-ietf-enum-pres-00.txt
         Pages           : 8
         Date            : 2003-12-18

This document registers an ENUM service for presence services (as
    described in RFC2778 [2]) pursuant to the guidelines in RFC2916bis
    [1].  Specifically, this document focuses on provisioning pres URIs
    in ENUM.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-pres-00.txt

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:[email-masked]
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 01:21:01 -0500

Some comments on the draft:

1. The abstract includes references to rfc2778 and rfc2916bis. I believe 
that you are not allowed to have references in an abstract, since the 
abstract frequently appears in isolation, without the rest of the 
document (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

> ENUM exists primarily to facilitate
>    the interconnection of systems that rely on telephone numbers with
>    those that use URIs to route transactions.

Nit: URIs don't do routing. They're names. Suggest: ".. that use URIs to 
identify resources."

> The IMPP WG of the IETF has a defined a generic URI used to identify
>    a presence service for a particular resource: the 'pres' URI scheme
>    (defined in CPP [4]).  This document describes an enumservice for
>    advertising presence information associated with an E.164 number.

Nit: I'm not a fan of naming working groups in standards document, since 
standards frequently persist beyond the group itself. I would suggest: 
"The Common Profile for Presence (CPP) [4] defines the 'pres' URI scheme 
for identifying a presence resource".

> The presence information that is shared varies by communications
>    service.  The IETF IMPP WG has defined a Presence Information Data
>    Format (or PIDF [6]) for describing the presence data associated with
>    a presentity. 

same comment as above.

> The scheme of the URI that will appear in the regexp field of a NAPTR
>    record using the 'E2U+pres' enumservice will be the 'pres' URI
>    scheme.  There are, however, other URI schemes that can be used to
>    identify presence services. 

Its unclear from this text whether the URI MUST be a pres URI, or just 
SHOULD be a pres URI, and therefore a SIP URI, for example, would be OK.

> However, revealing a pres URI in and of itself is unlikely to
>    introduce many privacy concerns (although depending on the structure
>    of the URI, it might reveal the full name or employer of the target).

I think its worth saying that, in cases where this bit is a security 
concern (revealing the full name or employer of the target), anonymized 
URIs can be used to avoid such disclosure.

> References

This section is not split into normative and informative. I'm assuming 
that this specification is targeted for PS and not informational, right?

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

Richard Shockey wrote:

> 
> It was the consensus of the WG in Seoul that we proceed to last call 
> with this document.
> 
> The intent of the last call is to solicit comments before submitting the 
> ID to the IESG as a Proposed Standard.
> 

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com