Subject: [Simple] IMDN

From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:05:18 -0400

I posted an update to Instant Message Delivery Notification (IMDN) for
Common Presence and Instant Messaging (CPIM) Messages.

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-burger-simple-imdn-01.txt>

The broad differences from -00 are:
1. The work group seems to be enamored with XML.  Instead of using
MDN-style or CPIM-style keyword header - value PDU's, we use XML.  Kind
of silly, as you already have to have a header - value parser to use
CPIM, and the extensibility isn't likely to be in the areas where XML
helps.

2. The message format and transport protocol is compatible with lists
(exploders), relays (MSRP), and gateways (non-CPIM, as well as to
e-mail).

3. The message format and transport protocol enables the possibility for
end-to-end security through list exploders and gateways.

4. Imposes a globally unique message ID on the CPIM message. While this
is not strictly necessary, experience in the e-mail world shows this
will become very important for message tracking.

Compared to draft-khartabil-simple-im-report-00:
1. Drop the "confirm" content disposition.

2. Drop the backward message ID restrictions; message ID is orthogonal
to the report.

3. Impose a MUST NOT for a IMDN to request an IMDN.

4. Identify the IMDN at the CPIM level, so you don't have to parse the
whole message to figure out what it is.

5. Considerably less state burden in the gateway / list exploder case.

There are a ton of open issues indicated in the draft, such as the
meaning of "only report failure."  I offered that makes no sense, and
thus isn't a possibility.  Clearly, I can put it in easily, but I would
like to see a cogent argument describing what it means.

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