Subject: IM and UM

From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:04:25 -0500

Honestly, IM wasn't on the radar screen.  There has been a lot of thought on
the notification side, like Rohan's work on SIP-mwi and Noam's work on SNAP.
Are you're thinking of a short message store in the case of a person sending
an off-line IM?  If so, no, we haven't thought about it and yes, we really
should.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:56 PM
To: Eric Burger; Robert Sparks
Subject: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-burger-um-reqts-00.txt]

Eric,

This is very timely. We need a solution for fetching and management of
IM as well. Having a unified solution for it all would be excellent. I
hope IM requirements can be considered too. Where is this being
discussed? Is there a bof or something? Are there protocol proposals?
[snip]

---

From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:14:32 -0500

It's not so much that clients and servers should not change, it's more that
the UM framework must be backwards compatible with RFC [2]822 and all of the
existing infrastructure.

The approach is the same one I promoted for IVM: UM-aware clients and
servers understand UM semantics.  Non-UM-aware clients and servers can
participate in a UM interaction, but they may either lose the UM semantics
or not understand the UM semantics.  Part of the work for UM is to
characterize the scenarios.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:56 PM
To: Eric Burger; Robert Sparks
Subject: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-burger-um-reqts-00.txt]

[snip]

Also, the requirements confused me a little; it seemed to say that
clients and servers should not change. OK, if nothing changes, what are
you doing differently?
[snip]