Subject: Re: [Simple] IM Session Transport

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:46:50 -0500

Christian Huitema wrote:
> 
> > Based on the discussions at the SIMPLE session at the IETF53 meeting,
> do
> > we now have consensus that the approaches we're studying for the
> message
> > transport inside an IM session are in fact:
> >
> >       - SIP MESSAGE (with a specific "feature set")
> >       - IMSX (draft-mrose-simple-exchange-01.txt)
> >
> > At least this was my impression from the presentations/discussions
> there.
> >
> > I assume this means that IMTP as such is not considered any more, but
> an
> > updated version of draft-ietf-simple-im-session-00.txt that addresses
> > the issues Jonathan presented, may instead be expected?
> 
> That is definitely not my impression. I left the meeting feeling that
> the rough consensus was to use IMTP as the base solution, with the
> possibility of negotiating other transports in SDP as an option (e.g.
> IMSX). However, Jonathan promised to update the IMTP draft.

I think the difference between what Aki and you are saying is merely
pedantic. The basic idea behind my presentation was that, with the new
loose routing capabilities of bis, we would no longer need a separate
protocol for IM transport. We could use regular SIP, with the MESSAGE
method, in a particular usage scenario (pre-loaded routes with all tcp
transport, for example). Thus, there would no longer be IMTP as a
separate protocol, merely a draft on the usage of the MESSAGE method in
this modality. Indeed, I would argue that such a usage description
belongs in draft-ietf-simple-im-session.

My impression was that there was good consensus on this approach, but we
would need to have a concrete proposal to look at. I believe the chairs
allocated 4 weeks for the total time to write and submit the draft, and
compare it with IMSX. I also recall that there was general agreement
that other IM transport could always be negotiated as per the general
SIP/SDP capability.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.            72 Eagle Rock Avenue
Chief Scientist                         First Floor
dynamicsoft                             East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                 FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                  PH:  (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com
_______________________________________________
simple mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:21:17 -0800

do
message
there.
an

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:55:19 -0500

My impression is consistent with what Jonathon posted - namely that IMTP should go away, to be replaced with a restricted profile of SIP. I thought there was general
agreement of the room on that, though I don't recall if there was a humm.

	Paul

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:16:20 -0500

My notes say:

	IMTP was to be replaced by a profile of SIP

	after 4 weeks, both the IMTP replacement and IMSX would then be
	compared on their advantages and disadvantages

Yes, it was noted that more than one session mechanism could be defined.
But that was not used as a justification to make a decision for either
mechanism that day.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> 
> My impression is consistent with what Jonathon posted - namely that
> IMTP should go away, to be replaced with a restricted profile of SIP.
> I thought there was general