Subject: RE: [Simple] simple-message-sessions

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:44:00 -0500

Cullen Jennings writes:

> I don't think this document has had the discussion
> it deserves. For example: the question of why this
> is better than just running MESSAGE over SIP on TCP
> has never been answered.

1. It's smaller than SIP.

  I just had a discussion with handset manufacturer in which
  they expressed concern about the large number of mandatory
  headers (on the order of 500 - 1000 bytes) just to send a
  MESSAGE. I assured them that message sessions, with header
  blocks much closer to 50 bytes, would alleviate many of
  their concerns.

2. It doesn't traverse the proxy network

  Just using MESSAGE over TCP requires proxies to stay in
  the path of the messages. While this can be avoided in
  theory, such avoidance is exacerbated by the fact that
  MESSAGE messages don't create sessions.

3. It doesn't allow advanced call control

  On a related note, the fact that MESSAGEs exist outside
  of dialogs make them nearly impossible to manage. You
  can't perform REFER; you don't get to leverage the XCON
  (and any future conferencing work); all other call control
  stuff doesn't work. With message sessions, IMs are just
  another media stream.

There are probably other major advantages that I'm missing at
the moment, but those are the three that loom largest in
my mind.

/a

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