Subject: RE: [lemonade] some questions in draft-ietf-lemonade-notifications-03

From: Jon Ingi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 06:35:57 -0700

[Ben Last wrote]
> Also: as far as I know there is no standard way to code up the sending
> of an SMS.  Every messaging provider I've ever interfaced with has a
> different way of doing it, so any server vendor would have to either
> offer a set of different interfaces (and the number of these could be
> very large) or expect the installation process to include coding up some
> messaging-service-provider specific way to handle the messages.

Correct.  No standardised  interfaces have been specified for the  
connection to a SMSC.  The main propriatery protocols are listed in  
3GPP doc 23.039, SMPP being the most popular in areas where I've been  
involved in deployments.  HTTP based protocols are also very popular  
with various SMS aggregators.

Jon Ingi

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

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:12:41 -0700

At 11:10 AM +0100 8/9/06, Ben Last wrote:

>  Sure, it's more
>  complex from the OS's point of view, but that's hidden from the
>  programmer.

I think it would be a mistake to make a protocol more complex and 
expensive simply because programmers can implement it by taking 
advantage of existing libraries and APIs.  Good programmers 
understand, at least in general terms, what happens under the hood.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
We like because, we love although.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:16:21 -0700

At 8:38 AM +0100 8/14/06, Ben Last wrote:

>  Actually, it's not as bad as that from the client point of view

>  Steps 4-6 are all dealt with by the base OS or messaging layers

The complexity and overhead are still there, even if the client 
doesn't necessarily see it.

>  But as mentioned earlier, there are (currently) significant cost issues
>  with use of MMS.  Something I also didn't mention earlier is transit
>  time: MMS messages seem to be subject to more and longer delays, at
>  least in and between the UK/EU operators, than SMS.  Since part of the
>  rationale for using OOB notifications seems to be immediacy.

Good point.
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Paranoids are the only ones who notice things anymore.
                                     --Anatole Broyard

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:34:38 +0200

Randall Gellens writes:
>>  Sure, it's more complex from the OS's point of view, but that's 
>>  hidden from the programmer.
>

So do bad programmers when there's a bug. Consider fixing something 
which can be reproduced by doing x using server y and client z . A 
fairly common task for the maintainers of y and z, ie. for everyone. 
The very first step is necessarily protocol-level analysis, so all that 
"hidden" complexity is uncovered right away.

Arnt