Subject: [Simple] Message sessions

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:46:42 -0500

Now that the presence and watcherinfo work has gone forward to the IESG, we
need to return to the issue of message sessions - we are quite a bit overdue
on our deliverable to solve this problem, largely because many of the core
SIP/SIMPLE people have been focusing on some other issues. As those of you
who have followed the discussion regarding the MESSAGE method draft in the
SIP WG are aware, there is now a better transition strategy emerging to
determine how one segues from paging mode to session mode. At least one case
in which we know we would like to transition is when large content (a binary
media file, for example) is being transmitted over instant messages.
However, although we know what message sessions are and what we'd like to
use them for, we still have not arrived at any conclusions in the SIMPLE WG
on the actual session protocol.

Two proposals have been made for session protocols:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrose-simple-exchange-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-simple-message-session-0
0.txt

In Minneapolis, we all collectively took an action item to review these
approaches in order to determine their suitability. At the time, however,
the second of these drafts was not available. We also really have no
criteria on which to evaluate these drafts other than the requirements that
fall out of CPIM.

It is important that we arrive at some consensus about pursuing one (or
both) of these documents as working group items shortly. At the very least,
determining that they comply with CPIM guidelines is critical. The chairs
would therefore like to solicit some volunteers to review these proposals in
the next TWO weeks in the light of the following documents from the IMPP WG:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-impp-cpim-02.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2779.txt

If you can commit to provide a written review of the comformance of one of
the session protocol proposals to CPIM guidelines within the timeline,
please contact the chairs (myself and Robert) privately; we'll assign
reviewers shortly.

We would also welcome any general discussion of the merits of these
protocols, whether it is preferable to pursue one or both of these
proposals, suggested requirements and so on. 

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.
SIMPLE WG co-chair

_______________________________________________
simple mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 21:58:20 -0500

> need to return to the issue of message sessions - we are quite a bit
overdue
. . .
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrose-simple-exchange-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-simple-message-sessi
on-0
> 0.txt

I personally lean towards the mrose approach. BEEP does a decent job of
the message delivery operation. It allows standardized relay elements to
be added as needed and provides for a sort of path-discovery that would
appear to be beneficial in firewall traversal scenarios. It provides a
nice layering distinctiuon between "can I talk to you" and "may I talk
to the network".

--
Dean

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:41:26 -0400

I would prefer simple-message-session. I don't want to have to 
administer two very different types of devices, with different (and, in 
the case of mrose, undefined) network management.

I still agree with the argument in simple-message that a unified 
mechanism for page and session is very desirable. Transitioning and 
gatewaying will be much easier.

I don't see why mrose has an advantage in "standardized relay elements 
to be added as needed". What can be added there that can't be added in 
simple-message?

I'm afraid I find the "firewall discovery" item too vague to understand 
what exactly the advantage would be.

The overall system complexity, in terms of explaining what's going on 
and in terms of implementing, seem far less in a unified system where 
page and session mode share conceptual elements where this makes sense.

Dean Willis wrote:
> Jon asked:
> 
>>Now that the presence and watcherinfo work has gone forward to the
> 
> IESG, we
> 
>>need to return to the issue of message sessions - we are quite a bit
> 
> overdue
> . . .
>