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

From: "Weingarten Jerry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:24:07 +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

---

From: Kue Wong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:20:50 -0400

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for your feedback.

Your editorial comments will be incorporated in the next goals draft.

I have a comment on your question about section 6.1 and 5.1.1 and 5.1.2.
The intent of section 5 was to enumerate some general principles to apply
in extending mail protocols. These principles (including 5.1.1 and 
5.1.2) as well
as other pragmatic considerations lead to the decision to limit the 
lemonade charter
to extending IMAP (6.1). Do you think the text needs to be reworked to make
this clearer?

I am in agreement with your comment on section 7.1.2 and will make 
appropriate text
changes. (Handsets do have keypads which are rudimentary keyboards.)

As for your other questions, I encourage more feedback/discussion from/by the
list.

Thanks,
Kue Wong
goals draft editor

>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C4B736.91BE5062"
>
>Hi all,
>
>I have some comments on this document - mostly editorial but one or 
>two requests for clarification -
>
>Editorial comments:
>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')
>
>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?
>
>