Subject: RE: [Simple] Issue 3: No date/time in IMDN

From: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 07:24:44 -0500

My pushback is, why bother with a data element that has no value, other
than burning bits in the Ether?  This is more especially so if that data
element is already in the PDU two or three times?

-----Original Message-----
From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:00 PM
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] Issue 3: No date/time in IMDN

I think we need a date/time stamp, but it should be optional and a 
disclaimer needs to be put in the draft saying that the date/time 
cannot be trusted.

Hisham

On Nov 7, 2005, at 4:24 PM, Burger, Eric wrote:

> Since the UAS can lie, this makes the data element useless.  Moreover,
> CPIM, and virtually all CPIM transport protocols, already have a
> date/time sent stamp.  Thus the draft does not have a date/time data
> element.
>
> OK with everyone?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:54:50 -0800

My UAS can lie, but it can also tell the truth. There are a lot of  
other things it can lie about that we do not leave out just because  
it can lie.

The question to me is, is it good enough to just use the timestamp in  
whatever envelope or transit protocol we use? I'm on the fence here-- 
if I use a SIP header, it is likely to get lost across gateways. If I  
use a CPIM header, I require a CPIM envelope when I otherwise might  
not have needed one--which adds size. So, I think I am slightly  
leaning towards including an _optional_ timestamp in the IMDN schema.