Subject: [lemonade] Last Call: 'Mapping Between the Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) and Internet Mail' to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 18:42:55 -0500

A previous version of this document was approved by the IESG.  After an
appeal by John Klensin, the document was returned to the working group.
The working group has made significant changes in response to the appeal
and in relation to the follow-on discussion.  This version incorporates those
changes, and the Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse
service environments WG has requested the IESG to consider the following
document:

- 'Mapping Between the Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) and Internet Mail '
   <draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2005-11-25.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping-06.txt

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 07:27:16 -0800

One issue of documentation of relationship between documents that I'd like 
to be reassured about......

in May 2005, the IESG approved the URI scheme "mms" as part of its approval 
of draft-ietf-enum-msg-05.

This document contains the statement:

   Enumservice Name: "mms"

   Enumservice Type: "mms"

   Enumservice Subtypes: "mailto"

   URI Scheme: 'mailto:'

   Functional Specification:

      This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
      associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using an
      email protocol.

      MMS messages are sent over SMTP using the format specified by TS
      23.140 [15] section 8.4.4 and TS 26.140 [16] section 4.

      Within and between MMS Environments (MMSE, network infrastructures
      that support the MultiMedia Service), other pieces of state data
      (for example, charging-significant information) are exchanged
      between MMS Relay Servers.  Thus, although these servers use SMTP
      as the "bearer" for their application exchanges, they map their
      internal state to specialised headers carried in the SMTP message
      exchanges.  The headers used in such MMSE are described in detail
      in [17].

Relevant references:

   [15]  3GPP, "Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS); Functional
         description; Stage 2 (Release 5)", 3GPP TS 23.140.

   [16]  3GPP, "Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS); Media formats and
         codecs; (Release 5)", 3GPP TS 26.140.

   [17]  Gellens, R., "Mapping Between the Multimedia Messaging Service
         (MMS) and Internet Mail", draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping-03
         (Work in Progress), April 2005.

In the draft under consideration, what may be the same references as the 
first two are formatted oddly:

Normative:

    [Stage_3] "MMS MM1 Stage 3 using OMA/WAP", X.S0016-310

    "MMS MM4 Stage 3 Inter-Carrier Interworking", X.S0016-340

    "Multimedia Messaging Service:  Functional description; Stage 2", TS
    23.140 Release 5.

Informative:

    [Stage_2] "Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS); Stage 2", Functional
    Specification, April 2003, X.S0016-200.

              "Multimedia Messaging Service; Media formats and codecs",
    TS26.140Release 5.

My research at the time of draft-ietf-enum-msg-04 (September 2004 to 
February 2005) indicated that both these specifications were needed to have 
anything like a fully specified mapping; at that time, the -lemonade- 
document was not referred to at all.

I'd like to have reassurance that:

- between the -lemonade- document, the -enum- document and the TS 
23.140/26.140 documents, we have one specification for how to carry MMS 
over email for any given context (the insertion of the cross reference in 
-enum--05 seems to indicate that such a desire is present). (It's possible 
that the context that -enum- describes, MMS/Internet gateways, is different 
from the one -enum- describes. But the -enum- doc is not clear to me on 
this.)

- the TS 26.140 reference is indeed informative for the -lemonade- spec

- if any component of 23.140 or 26.140 is being updated or obsoleted by the 
-lemonade- spec, it is properly noted in the -lemonade- document and known 
to the maintainers of the 3GPP documents.

It would also be nice if the references in the -lemonade- document were 
formatted in a more standard fashion...... the current format suggests 
either that the reference covers a group of unrelated documents or that 
there is a [tag] missing for a couple of the documents.

This is not a comment about the technical content of the document, which I 
have not reviewed; it's just a worry that we should document our 
specification relationships as clearly as possible.

Regards,

                 Harald Alvestrand

--On 5. november 2005 18:42 -0500 The IESG <[email-masked]> wrote:

> and in relation to the follow-on discussion.  This version incorporates
> those changes, and the Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse
> - 'Mapping Between the Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) and Internet
> Mail '    <draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
>

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:09:27 -0800

At 7:27 AM -0800 11/6/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> 23.140/26.140 documents, we have one specification for how to carry 
> MMS over email for any given context (the insertion of the cross 
> reference in -enum--05 seems to indicate that such a desire is 
> present). (It's possible that the context that -enum- describes, 
> MMS/Internet gateways, is different from the one -enum- describes. 
> But the -enum- doc is not clear to me on this.)

My understanding is that 23.140/26.140 and the 3GPP2 counterparts in 
X.S0016 specify how mms messages are carried over SMTP within mms 
systems, and the lemonade mms mapping document specifies how to 
gateway between mms systems and Internet mail systems.  The key 
difference is that within mms systems, much information is carried in 
x-mms-* headers, while in Internet mail this information is carried 
in standard headers or envelope parameters.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
> This is not to say that programming in, say, C++ takes a
> super human effort.  What I mean is that it makes sense to
> develop tools that lessen the effort and increase the chance
> for success.  C was a step in that direction....

First there was ALGOL... this was a big step in the right
direction, then CPL which was supposed to be practical ALGOL,
was a slight step backwards.  BCPL which was Basic CPL was
another step backwards.  Then came B, a big step backwards (it
took the Basic and dropped the CPL), and C was a small step
forwards over this.  I think in all this C had by the time it
came around lost the plot.

The plot that it really found, which was more by accident than
intention was cross platform development, but that would have
been in ALGOL anyway.  C did not prove that OSs could be
written in HLLs: that belonged already to ALGOL on the B5000
(~1964), and this OS survives today as still much better,
fully featured and robust than Unix or any other OS for that
matter.

As C.A.R Hoare said, Algol was a great improvement on most of
its successors.

  --from Usenet post by Ian Joyner,
    <http://www.mri.mq.edu.au/people/ian.html>