Subject: [Simple] IMDN Issue 4: Disposition Notification Types

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:25:56 +0200

In the draft, we have 2: delivered and read. There has been suggestions 
to add a least 2 more, namely processed and stored.

Stored is sent by a store-and-forward server to indicate that an IM has 
been stored.
Processed is sent by intermediaries to indicate that the IM has been 
processed (like a 202).

I personally am against those additions.

The sender of the IM is the one that requests any type of IMDN. So, 
through the UI, the user has to answer all the following questions for 
every IM:

- Do I want to know if the IM is delivered
- Do I want to know if the IM has failed
- Do I want to know if the IM is read

and the new states you are asking for:

- Do I want to know if the IM is processed
- Do I want to know if the IM is stored

Of course these can be global settings, but still, too many.

when sending a SIP MESSAGE request, you will get the transactional 
response 202 if the MESSAGE has been processed. I don't see the need 
for IMDN to indicate so. I also don't see why a user would want to know 
if a message is stored or not. In any case, isn't this the same as 
processed?

Hisham

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

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:46:05 +0300

Hi:

I recently got into a discussion of a related use case, I believe this 
is being under discussion in the OMA PoC WG. Imagine you are in an MSRP 
centralized conference, and you are sending a (large) file to to the 
roster through an MSRP switch. The sender would like to receive 
end-to-end progress reports of the file transfer for each individual 
participant.

I've heard of a few proposals to enable this use case, but in my 
opinion, the simplest one is to reuse IMDN to provide progressive 
positive reports. So that would add a third type of report to IMDN to 
the existing two. So, the current ones are positive-delivery and 
negative-delivery. I think a third one, progressive-delivery would be 
nice to have, and will solve this requirement.

Do people have any thoughts?

/Miguel

Hisham Khartabil wrote:
> response 202 if the MESSAGE has been processed. I don't see the need for 
> IMDN to indicate so. I also don't see why a user would want to know if a 
> message is stored or not. In any case, isn't this the same as processed?
> 
> Hisham
> 
> 

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:[email-masked]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:48:07 +0300

Hisham:

It sounds good to me. I think this "in-progress" state would solve the 
requirement. Probably the XML document would also need to convey an 
indication of the percentage of number of bytes received, for example. 
This will allow the sender to display a progress bar in the UI.

/Miguel

Hisham Khartabil wrote:
> Miguel,
> 
> After a discussion on the mailing list about IMDN types, I added the 
> "processing" IMDN type to my working copy of the draft (that I am now 
> finalising for submission). This "processing" IMDN type has 2 states: 
> "processed" and "stored". I guess you would need something like 
> "in-progress" as a state.
> 
> In my working copy, the text forbids endpoints from generating 
> "processing" IMDNs, but if we add the state you suggest, I can relax 
> that restriction for "in-progress" state.
> 
> Comments? (by Miguel and others :)
> 
> Hisham
> 
> On Aug 21, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Miguel Garcia wrote:
> 
>> Hi:
>>
>> is being under discussion in the OMA PoC WG. Imagine you are in an 
>> MSRP centralized conference, and you are sending a (large) file to to 
>> the roster through an MSRP switch. The sender would like to receive 
>>> In the draft, we have 2: delivered and read. There has been 
>>> suggestions to add a least 2 more, namely processed and stored.
>>> Stored is sent by a store-and-forward server to indicate that an IM 
>>> has been stored.
>>> through the UI, the user has to answer all the following questions 
>>> for every IM:
>>> for IMDN to indicate so. I also don't see why a user would want to 
>>> know if a message is stored or not. In any case, isn't this the same 
>>> as processed?
>>> Hisham

---

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:45:18 +0200

Miguel,

Hisham