[SR-Users] [OT] Fwd: [dispatch] proposed SIXPAC charter

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 10/21/10 12:09 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2010/10/21 Juha Heinanen<jh at tutpro.com>:
>>> this kind of privacy is affecting the calls as well, for example. I can
>>> send you a call or other SIP request to discover you are online/offline.
>>> So this is another service that should be applied globally: black-white
>>> lists.
>>>
>>> Having a mechanism just for presence is another bad design.
>> i agree and i implemented xcap_auth_status() function just in order to
>> be able apply xcap rules also to MESSAGEs and INVITEs.  there should be
>> different events for those though.
> There is no invite-rules neither message-rules specifications for
> XCAP, neither for XDM (OMA additions), just pres-rules. So we would
> end implementing a supposed "standard" but always introducing custom
> specifications to make it "logical". Then clients should also
> implement these custom extra layers of specs in order to interoperate
> properly.
>
> When it's required to add custom specifications it means that:
>
> - The core "standard" specifictions are not good or not enough.
> - Interoperability will be a pain.
>
> For me SIMPLE/XCAP is dead many months ago.
if ever it was really born :-)

Still there are some good concepts that can be re-used.

I see xcap as a service offered by the telephony provider, maybe in the 
way CPL was designed and somehow forgotten -- iirc, with CPL you can 
block users.

Cheers,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com