Subject: RE: [lemonade] WG last call on Goals - comments

From: "Weingarten Jerry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:48:56 +0200

Hi all,
 
I have some comments on this document - mostly editorial but one or two
requests for clarification -
 
Editorial comments:
Section 3.2.2 - First sentence should read - "Notification" is the
transaction by which the server notifies ..., i.e. change the word
"with" to "which"!
 
Section 4 - Change the sentence - "A number of Internet mail profile
supporting specific applications niches have been defined or proposed."
(last sentence) should be changed to read "A number of Internet mail
profile supporting specific application niches have been defined or
proposed.", i.e. remove the 's' from "applications".
 
Section 4.2.3 (second paragraph) - Change the first sentence where it
states "...and reduce the amount of data that needs be transmitted ..."
to read either "that needs to be" or "that need be".
 
Section 5.6  (last sentence) - Change the sentence to read "Streaming
between the server and client, in both directions, MUST BE supported",
i.e. the "must be" should be capitalized, other correction for clarity
of the text.
 
Section 6.1.1.1 (second paragraph) - Change the phrase "or utiliizing an
compnaion streaming protocol" to read "or utilizing a companion..."
(i.e. drop the 'n')
 
Questions for clarification -
Section 5.2.1 - I don't know if this was ever discussed - however,
another aspect of maintaining the context of the message would be
(continuing the example that is given in this section) that if the
recipient wishes to reply to the voice message then he should be limited
to a format that the sender can access, in this case a voice message!
 
Section 6.1 - This requirement seems to be limiting the requirement in
section 5.1.1 and if this is the intention, why not just delete section
5.1.1 & 5.1.2?
 
Section 6.1.1.1 - It was my understanding, from discussion in Vancouver,
that the group felt that the IMAP Channel extension is no longer
relevant.  If this is the case shouldn't reference 38 and this example
both here as well as in the next section be removed?
 
Section 7.1.2 - I would say that most handsets (i.e. cellular phones)
have a keyboard albeit a very limited one, but still a keyboard!
Therefore, I would suggest to change the statement to be: "Most of them
have either a very limited keyboard, no pointing device, or no screen
navigation capability"
 
Section 8.5 - The latest version of the 3GPP MMS Reference Architecture
now defines ten interfaces!  The question is whether there is a need to
update this description or just limit it to the v5 of the Ref Arch?
 
Yaacov (Jerry) Weingarten

Comverse - Standards 

phone: +972-3-645 2392

mobile: +972-52-854 2392

email: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Parsons [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 12:16 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [lemonade] WG last call on Goals

Folks, 

A two week last call period is open until midnight EDT Nov 2nd on: 
   Goals for Internet Messaging to Support Diverse Service Environments
<draft-ietf-lemonade-goals-04.txt> 

Please forward any comments on this document to the WG mailing list. 

Cheers, 
Glenn. 

______________________________________________________________________
This email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-Secure and has been
found clean.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade