Subject: RE: [Simple] New Draft: Deferred Messaging Disposition Notification

From: "Nancy Greene \(QA/EMC\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 01:59:18 -0500

I have a couple of comments on the DMDN draft:

- in the flow in fig 1, it seems that steps 11-12 need to be followed by
a step 12 a carrying a REPORT going from Bob's UA to the App server.
This report, whether it is a success REPORT or failure REPORT is then
translated into an IMDN in a SIP MESSAGE as shown in steps 15-16. Note
that the BYE in steps 13-14 needs to be moved to be after the IMDN SIP
MESSAGE in steps 15-16. 

- to set the IMDN Route header, it seems it would be straightforward -
any Record-Route header in the INVITE kept when the message was deferred
is later used to set the IMDN Route header in the SIP MESSAGE carrying
the MSRP REPORT.

Nancy

-----Original Message-----
From: Stafford, Matthew [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 6:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Shih, Jerry
Subject: RE: [Simple] New Draft: Deferred Messaging Disposition
Notification

Prague agenda item request: we would like to have a timeslot (20 minutes
if possible) to present & discuss this draft. One of my co-authors,
Jerry Shih, will be attending the session.

Thanks,
Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Stafford, Matthew
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:45 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Wuthnow, Mark; Shih, Jerry
Subject: [Simple] New Draft: Deferred Messaging Disposition Notification

We had some discussion about a month ago re: pulling MSRP out of the
IMDN draft. Thanks to Ben, Miguel and Hisham for their responses. I'd
say the upshot of that discussion was twofold: the "slimmed-down" IMDN
draft needs to go ahead, and any push to expand IMDN's applicability
needs to start with clear documentation of requirements.

Jointly with two colleagues at Cingular/AT&T, I have submitted an I-D to
address the latter point. It is now posted at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stafford-simple-dmdn-00.txt

This draft is intended to start the ball rolling by .43) id 1HEgmA-00078H-Sl
	for [email-masked]; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:59:30 -0500
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [Simple] New Draft: Deferred Messaging Disposition Notification
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 01:59:18 -0500
From: "Nancy Greene \(QA/EMC\)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Stafford, Matthew" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Shih, Jerry" <[email-masked]>

I have a couple of comments on the DMDN draft:

- in the flow in fig 1, it seems that steps 11-12 need to be followed by
a step 12 a carrying a REPORT going from Bob's UA to the App server.
This report, whether it is a success REPORT or failure REPORT is then
translated into an IMDN in a SIP MESSAGE as shown in steps 15-16. Note
that the BYE in steps 13-14 needs to be moved to be after the IMDN SIP
MESSAGE in steps 15-16. 

- to set the IMDN Route header, it seems it would be straightforward -
any Record-Route header in the INVITE kept when the message was deferred
is later used to set the IMDN Route header in the SIP MESSAGE carrying
the MSRP REPORT.

Nancy

-----Original Message-----
From: Stafford, Matthew [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 6:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Shih, Jerry
Subject: RE: [Simple] New Draft: Deferred Messaging Disposition
Notification

Prague agenda item request: we would like to have a timeslot (20 minutes
if possible) to present & discuss this draft. One of my co-authors,
Jerry Shih, will be attending the session.

Thanks,
Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Stafford, Matthew
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:45 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Wuthnow, Mark; Shih, Jerry
Subject: [Simple] New Draft: Deferred Messaging Disposition Notification

We had some discussion about a month ago re: pulling MSRP out of the
IMDN draft. Thanks to Ben, Miguel and Hisham for their responses. I'd
say the upshot of that discussion was twofold: the "slimmed-down" IMDN
draft needs to go ahead, and any push to expand IMDN's applicability
needs to start with clear documentation of requirements.

Jointly with two colleagues at Cingular/AT&T, I have submitted an I-D to
address the latter point. It is now posted at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stafford-simple-dmdn-00.txt

This draft is intended to start the ball rolling by presenting use
cases. It makes a straw proposal that IMDN usage be extended to MSRP. (I
do understand that there may be other, better ways to meet the
requirements- but this draft still seems to be a reasonable starting
point.)

Best,
Matt

<snip snip...>

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

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

presenting use
cases. It makes a straw proposal that IMDN usage be extended to MSRP. (I
do understand that there may be other, better ways to meet the
requirements- but this draft still seems to be a reasonable starting
point.)

Best,
Matt

<snip snip...>

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

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