Re: draft-ietf-simple-chat-10

On Dec 1, 2011, at 2:52 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:

> Hi Ben,
> 
> The draft currently says that a nickname is associated with a URI of which the participant is known to the
focus. I don't have a use case in mind where a conference server could link two different SIP AoRs and allow
them to request the same nickname. It could be done, without standardization support, but I prefer not to
consider this case.
> 

Okay, I think I can live with it like it is 

> /Miguel
> 
> On 30/11/2011 23:35, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> Given the "MUST NOT automatically assign" part, do we need to put any
>> constraints on what nicknames the conference server MAY allow? For
>> example, is it illegal to allow two different AoRs to use the same
>> nickname, if the service provider has some a priori knowledge that
>> they represent the same entity?
>> 
>> On Nov 30, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> 
>>> I wouldn't object to this.
>>> 
>>> Thanks, Paul
>>> 
>>> On 11/30/11 7:23 PM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
>>>> Since we are converging, do you have any comments to the following