[ticker-dev] Re: Elvin presence spec draft - request for comments

[David Arnold]

-->"Bill" == Bill Segall <bill at dstc.edu.au> writes:

  Bill> Has anyone else done this before?

only about 10 different groups ;-)

the usual approaches have been:

1) add access control and authentication to the presence information,
   and manage the visibility (including proxying and forwarding) of
   your presence notifications explicitly.

2) encode a social policy implicitly in the protocol, typically
   limiting visibility of presence to your "buddy list" with little
   support for groups (or domains, as Sticker calls them).


i've yet to look at Matthew's proposal, so excuse me if you've done
this, but ... there's been a *lot* of work in this area over the last
5 years, and we'd do well not to reinvent the wheel, imo.

good starting points would be

- the IETF IMPP working group.
  http://www.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/impp.html
  http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/impp-charter.html

- the IETF PRIM working group.
  http://www.imppwg.org
  http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/prim-charter.html

- the IETF SIMPLE working group.
  http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/simple-charter.html
  http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/pipermail/simple 

- Jabber.
  http://www.jabber.org
  http://www.jabber.com
  http://www.jabbercentral.org

- ICQ Protocol
  http://www.d.kth.se/~d95-mih/icq/

useful papers would come from ECSCW, CSCW, CHI, AUSCHI, etc.

i'll have a look at Matthew's RFC ASAP.



d