Subject: [Simple] Quick Answer follow-up

From: Deepanshu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:22:27 +0800

Dear All,

As mentioned in the session, I would like to get your opinion by email.

Basically I would like to know the following

1.       Do you think that the concept of Quick Answer (as I explained while
presenting) itself, is feasible/needed for current IM systems. In other
words is it advantageous to have it in today IM service?

2.       If your answer is "Yes" or even "May be". Then do you think
something is needed to be defined (standardized) about that in IETF? 

3.       If you answer in "Yes" or even "May be". Then I kindly request you
to please name some of those things (instead of the solution defined in the
draft) which you expect to be used/extended for this purpose. e,g XCAP. This
will assist me to provide some gap analyses, if any.

Unfortunately, if your answer is "no" for the first question (which I
seriously don't expect) then I try to provide some more reasoning.

Regards

Deepanshu

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:43:56 +0900

> presenting) itself, is feasible/needed for current IM systems. In 
> other words is it advantageous to have it in today IM service?
>
> to please name some of those things (instead of the solution defined 
> in the draft) which you expect to be used/extended for this purpose. 
> e,g XCAP. This will assist me to provide some gap analyses, if any.
>

I'm not 100% convinced that we need this mechanism, but I'm willing to 
entertain requirements relating to it.

If this mechanism is pursued, it would seem to make sense to have 
something standardized.

In terms of existing mechanisms, I would think the most promising 
approaches would be either XCAP, or bare HTTP (PUT and GET).

/a

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:57:59 +0900

Deepanshu,

Like Adam, I'm not 100% clear that this is a required feature.  It's  
even less clear to me that it needs to be something that's done in the  
network; surely a UA could be provisioned with the right QA to send  
back?

--Richard

On Nov 11, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Deepanshu wrote:

> 1.       Do you think that the concept of Quick Answer (as I  
> explained while presenting) itself, is feasible/needed for current  
> IM systems. In other words is it advantageous to have it in today IM  
> service?
> 2.       If your answer is “Yes” or even “May be”. Then do you think  
> 3.       If you answer in “Yes” or even “May be”. Then I kindly  
> request you to please name some of those things (instead of the  
> solution defined in the draft) which you expect to be used/extended  
> for this purpose. e,g XCAP. This will assist me to provide some gap  
> analyses, if any.
>
> Unfortunately, if your answer is “no” for the first question (which  
> I seriously don’t expect) then I try to provide some more reasoning.
>
> Regards
> Deepanshu
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: "Smyth, Colm (Colm)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:50:11 -0000

Like Richard, I believe the Quick Answer (QA) requirement can be met
entirely within the UA implementation, potentially using local storage.
 
There is some benefit in this proposal's central storage of the QA's,
which enables mobility of the endpoint, or potentially sharing the QA's
across a user's endpoints. However I agree with Adam that XCAP seems a
more natural mechanism for this kind of data, more so than overloading
the SIP REGISTER and INVITE methods.
 
BTW, the term "canned response" is used elsewhere:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canned_response
-
http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-in-labs-canned-responses.html
 
All the best,
Colm.

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Adam Roach
Sent: 11 November 2009 03:44
To: Deepanshu
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] Quick Answer follow-up

	Dear All,

	As mentioned in the session, I would like to get your opinion by
email.

	<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.       <!--[endif]-->Do you think
that the concept of Quick Answer (as I explained while presenting)
itself, is feasible/needed for current IM systems. In other words is it
advantageous to have it in today IM service?

	<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.       <!--[endif]-->If your answer
is "Yes" or even "May be". Then do you think something is needed to be
defined (standardized) about that in IETF? 

	<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.       <!--[endif]-->If you answer in
"Yes" or even "May be". Then I kindly request you to please name some of
those things (instead of the solution defined in the draft) which you
expect to be used/extended for this purpose. e,g XCAP. This will assist
me to provide some gap analyses, if any.

/a

---

From: Deepanshu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:17:21 +0800

Symth,

The benefits you mentioned for central storage is exactly what I had in mind
while coming up with this draft.

What I said (in my mail to Richard only, sorry for not sending to the list)
is further echoed by you in terms of benefit for central storage. 

As for XCAP, if that is the best way to do it then, so be it.

Regards

Deepanshu

***********************************************

To: Richard

> It's even less clear to me that it needs to be something that's done in
the network

As I mentioned that today’s IM systems allow different client device to
log-in IM system at different point of time.

I’m creating a QA today with my PDA (as my client device). Tomorrow when
I’ll be logging-in using my mobile phone I want that QA, created using PDA,
available in my mobile phone. How that can be done without storing that QA
somewhere in the network?

> surely a UA could be provisioned with the right QA to send back?

Yes, it can be, if device manufacturer pre-configured them into the device.
But here I’m talking about *user* creating them and then using them.

************************************************

  _____  

From: Smyth, Colm (Colm) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 2009年11月11日 20:50
To: Adam Roach; Deepanshu
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Simple] Quick Answer follow-up

There is some benefit in this proposal's central storage of the QA's, which
enables mobility of the endpoint, or potentially sharing the QA's across a
user's endpoints. However I agree with Adam that XCAP seems a more natural
mechanism for this kind of data, more so than overloading the SIP REGISTER
and INVITE methods.

- http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-in-labs-canned-responses.html

All the best,

Colm.

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Adam Roach
Sent: 11 November 2009 03:44
To: Deepanshu
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] Quick Answer follow-up

Dear All,

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.       <!--[endif]-->Do you think that the
concept of Quick Answer (as I explained while presenting) itself, is
feasible/needed for current IM systems. In other words is it advantageous to
have it in today IM service?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.       <!--[endif]-->If your answer is “Yes” or
even “May be”. Then do you think something is needed to be defined
(standardized) about that in IETF? 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.       <!--[endif]-->If you answer in “Yes” or
even “May be”. Then I kindly request you to please name some of those
things (instead of the solution defined in the draft) which you expect to be
used/extended for this purpose. e,g XCAP. This will assist me to provide
some gap analyses, if any.

If this mechanism is pursued, it would seem to make sense to have something
standardized.

In terms of existing mechanisms, I would think the most promising approaches
would be either XCAP, or bare HTTP (PUT and GET).

/a

---

From: "Smyth, Colm (Colm)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:45:29 -0000

(re-sending to come under mailing list size limit)

Agreed, I think it would be worthwhile if you could adapt your proposal to XCAP, preserving the benefit of central access and management of the Quick Answers (canned responses).  It would be fruitful to add some more discussion on the expected user experience within a UA. 
 
BTW, my preferred short name (and first name) is Colm. 
 
All the best,
Colm.

From: Deepanshu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 11 November 2009 13:17
To: Smyth, Colm (Colm); 'Adam Roach'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Simple] Quick Answer follow-up

Symth,

The benefits you mentioned for central storage is exactly what I had in mind while coming up with this draft.

What I said (in my mail to Richard only, sorry for not sending to the list) is further echoed by you in terms of benefit for central storage. 

Regards

Deepanshu

To: Richard

> It's even less clear to me that it needs to be something that's done in the network

As I mentioned that today’s IM systems allow different client device to log-in IM system at different point of time.

I’m creating a QA today with my PDA (as my client device). Tomorrow when I’ll be logging-in using my mobile phone I want that QA, created using PDA, available in my mobile phone. How that can be done without storing that QA somewhere in the network?

> surely a UA could be provisioned with the right QA to send back?

Yes, it can be, if device manufacturer pre-configured them into the device. But here I’m talking about *user* creating them and then using them.

Like Richard, I believe the Quick Answer (QA) requirement can be met entirely within the UA implementation, potentially using local storage.

There is some benefit in this proposal's central storage of the QA's, which enables mobility of the endpoint, or potentially sharing the QA's across a user's endpoints. However I agree with Adam that XCAP seems a more natural mechanism for this kind of data, more so than overloading the SIP REGISTER and INVITE methods.

All the best,

Colm.

---

From: Deepanshu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:53:04 +0800

(resending, with less size)

Sure, I’ll do that.

Thanks for your suggestion Colm (I go it). 

In case anyone has any other suggestion/comments/opinion please let me know.

Regards

Deepanshu

  _____  

From: Smyth, Colm (Colm) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 2009年11月11日 22:45
To: Deepanshu; Adam Roach
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Simple] Quick Answer follow-up

Agreed, I think it would be worthwhile if you could adapt your proposal to
XCAP, preserving the benefit of central access and management of the Quick
Answers (canned responses).  It would be fruitful to add some more
discussion on the expected user experience within a UA. 

All the best,

Colm.

  _____  

Symth,

Regards

Deepanshu

To: Richard

the network

  _____  

All the best,

Colm.

---

From: "Smyth, Colm (Colm)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:28:11 -0000

Agreed, I think it would be valuable if you could adapt your proposal to XCAP, preserving the benefit of central access and management of the Quick Answers (canned responses).
 
BTW, my preferred short name (and first name) is Colm ;)
 
All the best,
Colm.

Symth,

Regards

Deepanshu

To: Richard

All the best,

Colm.

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adam Roach
Sent: 11 November 2009 03:44
To: Deepanshu
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] Quick Answer follow-up

	Dear All,

	<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.       <!--[endif]-->Do you think that the concept of Quick Answer (as I explained while presenting) itself, is feasible/needed for current IM systems. In other words is it advantageous to have it in today IM service?

	<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.       <!--[endif]-->If your answer is “Yes” or even “May be”. Then do you think something is needed to be defined (standardized) about that in IETF? 

	<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.       <!--[endif]-->If you answer in “Yes” or even “May be”. Then I kindly request you to please name some of those things (instead of the solution defined in the draft) which you expect to be used/extended for this purpose. e,g XCAP. This will assist me to provide some gap analyses, if any.

I'm not 100% convinced that we need this mechanism, but I'm willing to entertain requirements relating to it.

If this mechanism is pursued, it would seem to make sense to have something standardized.

In terms of existing mechanisms, I would think the most promising approaches would be either XCAP, or bare HTTP (PUT and GET).

/a

---

From: Deepanshu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:48:58 +0800

Sure, I’ll do that.

In case anyone have any other suggestion/comments/opinion please let me
know.

Regards

Deepanshu

  _____  

Sent: 2009年11月11日 21:28

Agreed, I think it would be valuable if you could adapt your proposal to
XCAP, preserving the benefit of central access and management of the Quick
Answers (canned responses).

All the best,

Colm.

  _____  

Symth,

Regards

Deepanshu

To: Richard

the network

  _____  

All the best,

Colm.

  _____  

Dear All,

/a