Timed Presence Extensions to the Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) to Indicate Status Information for Past and Future Time Intervals
RFC 4481

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Ted Hardie) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2005-12-01 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Note - author has prepared changes in response to these comments:

Comments from Gen-ART review by Avri Doria:

'presentity' should be defined for lay readers.

- Needs spell check: e.g thes

- RFC 2119 issues:

In 3. 
   Implementations SHOULD ascertain
   whether the time values in the <timed-status> elements are plausible,
   for example, by checking whether the time stamp in a notification
   protocol message corresponds to local time and by making sure that
   they are fully in the past or future, both relative to real time and
   the time contained in the optional PIDF <timestamp> element.

In which cases or under what conditions is doing this not required?

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

Comment (2005-12-01 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Gee what a title for a document!

(Alex Zinin) No Objection