Subject: RE: [Simple] Comments on message-sessions-02

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:27:16 -0600

Aki Niemi [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> These are somewhat orthogonal aspects of a message session. It is 
> probably useful to label a specific session as e.g., file-transfer

Yes. You do this by using port 21. If you know a priori that all
you are going to do is transfer files, the IETF has already
defined a file transfer protocol.

> It is another thing to state the disposition of a message. 
> Although in a file transfer session, all messages would likely
> have the same disposition (like "attachment"), it would still
> be useful to list other things like filename per each message.

I think you want the "filename" parameter defined in RFC 2183.

/a

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

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:55:06 +0200

> defined a file transfer protocol.

Right. And if you know a priori that all you are going to do is chat 
with the other party, then just use IRC. Great, we're done.

Thanks,
Aki

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:55:06 +0200

Thanks,
Aki

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:07:14 -0600

From section 5.1:

"An analysis of whether it makes sense to do this [file transfer or 
sending very large content], rather than sending such content over FTP, 
HTTP, or some other such protocol, is beyond the scope of this document."

I originally took (and still agree with) Adam's position, but that is 
clearly not the consensus of this group. (If I am incorrect in that 
belief, I would love to hear it as I could remove quite a bit of text.)

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:07:14 -0600

From section 5.1:

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:22:19 +0200

Hi,

Perhaps I should also clarify my position. Clearly, if you are going to 
just do file transfer, there is no sense at all to start to develop 
something else but to use FTP.

But this is not the case here. We are developing MSRP to enable sending 
messages in a session, negotiating this in SIP/SDP, and have tools to 
invoke relays for these sessions.

Now, it is also possible *and* useful to send files, or things other 
than text/plain, in this session - at which point it becomes "file 
transfer". Please explain why this is bad practice just because IETF 
already has another protocol to do "file transfer"?

It's not like we are re-developing TCP here. If we were, I'd share your 
concerns. As I understand it, in the hour-glass model of Internet, 
multiple application layer protocols that may even overlap in 
functionality is not a bad thing.

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:22:19 +0200

Hi,

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:30:39 -0600

I think this particular horse has been dead for some time. The point I 
clearly failed to make in my post is that I have given in on the subject.

Aki Niemi wrote:
>> sending very large content], rather than sending such content over 
>> FTP, HTTP, or some other such protocol, is beyond the scope of this 
>> document."
>>

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:30:39 -0600

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:33:57 -0800

> defined a file transfer protocol.

Yes, and FTP meets my end user to end user file transfer needs somewhat less
well than IRC meets my IMPP needs. File transfer is a requirement for any
viable modern IM application. FTP will still be used for places where it
meets the needs. 

Cullen

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:33:57 -0800

Cullen

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:45:56 -0600

> viable modern IM application. FTP will still be used for places where it

I agree that it is a requirement for any modern application. That does 
not necessarily make it a requirement of a particular protocol. I know 
that under certain conditions, the mechanism yahoo uses for file 
transfer is very different than the mechanism it uses for IM transport.

It would be well within reason for us to specify how to securly signal 
ftp sessions via SIP.

That all being said, we established a consensus that MSRP (Or should 
that be MSP now?) was expected to be able to carry arbitrarily large 
content. I very much doubt that consensus has changed.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:45:56 -0600

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:52:58 -0800

> content. I very much doubt that consensus has changed.

Yes - that makes sense - sorry I brought up the topic again.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:52:58 -0800