Re: A comment on draft-ietf-simple-chat-12

Hi,

thanks. I have just requested the IETF LC.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 23/01/2012 11:42 AM, Miguel Garcia A wrote:
> 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
> 
> On 23/01/2012 9:10, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> Hi Miguel Angel,
>>
>> thanks. As soon as the new revision hits the archives I will initiate
>> the IETF LC.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On 23/01/2012 9:46 AM, Miguel Garcia A wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>> On 23/01/2012 8:34, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 20/01/2012 5:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>>> Further: I'd encourage you to use the word "identifier" because
>>>>> "identity" is vague and overloaded.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/20/12 5:54 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Simple mailing list
>>>>>>> Simple <at> ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>>>>
>>>
>>
>