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

From: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:37:28 -0400

I don't buy the stored state, but I do buy processed.  I again offer
there is no value to the user asking for failure reports.  The only
useful thing to ask the UAS is "tell me the disposition of the message."
That disposition may include "message got to me (UAS) but it I know the
message is going elsewhere, and I haven't gotten to it yet" -
"processed".

That is, I wouldn't build the UI they way you are building it.  That's
my choice.  My way doesn't have the complexities of your way. :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Hisham Khartabil [mailtMS-TNEF-Correlator: 
From: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hisham Khartabil" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

Go for it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:28 AM
To: [email-masked]' WG
Subject: [Simple] IMDN Issue 3: Schema vs RelaxNG

I have not started creating the schema yet. I'm thinking of having a go 
at using RelaxNG since the XML document is a simple one and would be a 
good way to get into RelaxNG. Does anyone object?

Regards,
Hisham

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

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

---

From: Sean Olson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:59:22 -0700

I would agree with Eric. The stored state is not interesting to me.
Processed, Failed, Delivered are interesting. "Read" is questionable,
but I will defer on that one. I'm assuming that you are not actually
suggesting the UI would expose these settings but that suitable values
would be chosen by the UA implementation 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 4:26 AM
To: [email-masked]' WG
Subject: [Simple] IMDN Issue 4: Disposition Notification Types

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

---

From: Eric McMurry <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:48:06 -0500

I'm okay with using "processed" for the stored case.  The servers can  
put descriptive text in to let the user know what has happened with  
their message.  This does preclude the possibility of clients  
determining that a message has been stored in a standard way, but I  
can only think of one case for this now, and it's not a particularly  
strong one.

Picture a graphical client with a sent message list.  The list could  
have small icons next to each entry showing its disposition.  The  
user could tell at a glance that a message had been delivered,  
failed, read, stored, or processed.  Processed would not be as  
meaningful as stored and you can't get the stored icon without having  
the "stored" state, unless you resort to parsing the descriptive text  
from the server and hoping it doesn't change.

Eric M.

---

From: Sean Olson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 08:24:37 -0700

I understand displaying the disposition of a message. What I don't get is UI where the user has to select what dispositions (if any) they wish to receive. That's just an implementation choice really, but it's not something I think should be baked into the protocol.

________________________________

From: Eric McMurry [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Fri 8/4/2006 7:48 AM
To: Sean Olson
Cc: Burger, Eric; Hisham Khartabil; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] IMDN Issue 4: Disposition Notification Types

Eric M.