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

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 10/21/10 6:20 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2010/10/21 Daniel-Constantin Mierla<miconda at gmail.com>:
>> Back to first paragraph. Are XMPP, MSN, Skype doing processing to these
>> documents, or are they just pure storage systems for them with a white/black
>> list access policy? In other words, I can publish my vcard and then tell the
>> server if X ask for it, don't send my email address, just my web site
>> address?
> In both XMPP and MSN the avatar and vcard are retrieved by a watcher
> from the server if the watched gives the watcher permissions, so the
> server *does* interpret the permissions rules in behalf of the user.
> How to achieve this logic in a non-centralized architecture? I cannot
> imagine it.

Maybe is a misunderstanding here. Hope you haven't understood that there 
will no server involved and is kind of peer-to-peer network like skype.

But everything in the server is just routing to resources. 
Authorizations rules exist and we apply them for many years for voice 
calls. But we don't authorize typically the content (e.g., not allowed 
to speak Spanish on a call).
> So, if we assume that the "server" must be active part on the
> subscription (it must interpret permissions and know about
> subscriptions) then, why to implement in other way (direct/end-to-end
> presence) presence status retrieval when the watched user is online?
> two mechanisms?
Interpreting the permission of routing to a resource (being it my vcard, 
voicemail, my phone, etc) is there and should be reused. With some 
phones you have DND on it, or with some services you have it in the 
server (managed via ivr or web or a special key on the (Snom) phone 
sending an update to server).

The problem right now is interpreting the content - presence information 
is content. If the server does not understand the Event you subscribe 
to, bye bye...

Cheers,
Daniel

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