Subject: [Simple] Details on MSRP Details (DSN)

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 11:58:56 -0400

I am back after a hiatus.

I have not read the latest message-sessions draft.  However, I have read
some discussions on the list about it.

One substantive issue: The status code is NOT a parsing of the three digits
of HTTP/SIP.  The first digit does map directly.  However, the other
segments are 3-digit sequences conveying much more detailed status
information.

A bigger issue comes out when you read the discussions on DSN, fragments,
SAR, message size, etc.  From a big picture, a high-level description of
MSRP is... "We have invented TCP, and it runs over TCP."

What triggered this thought?  The idea of tossing DSN's after a session
completes.  This brings us right back to where we started: DSN's DO NOT MAKE
SENSE FOR SESSION MODE TRANSACTIONS.  They make sense for store-and-forward,
but they do not for interactive sessions.  We have Layer 8 (user) protocols
to deal with it, e.g., "did you get my message?".

If the counter-argument is, "what if they didn't read it", then I would
suggest sending a registered letter.  But seriously, I didn't know that
replacing SMTP was in the charter.

--
- Eric

P.S. Unfortunately, I will not be attending the f2f, so don't hold back
responses - either privately or on the list.

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

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:28:58 -0500

> to deal with it, e.g., "did you get my message?".

I agree they don't make sense for peer to peer sessions. That is why we 
want them to be optional. Further, it may make sense to make the default 
be no DSN at all, at least for peer to peer sessions.

But when you introduce relays, the fact that you successfully delivered 
a message to the relay does not mean the relay can successfully deliver 
it downstream. This means you either have to make the upstre

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:31:30 -0500

Oops, itchy trigger finger. I meant to say that, with relays, you either 
need to make an upstream transaction pend on a downstream transaction, 
which has nasty chaining properties; or you need some way for a relay to 
tell you that it could not deliver the message.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:28:58 -0500

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:31:30 -0500