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

["Ben Last" <Ben.Last at emccsoft.com>]

Randall Gellens [mailto:randy at qualcomm.com] wrote, at 11 August 2006
19:09:
>There's also the security implications: with a simple notification that
an event has
>occurred, the payload generally needs to be signed but not encrypted.
When actual data
>(such as subject, sender, or body of the mail) is included, it needs to
be encrypted as well.
Excellent point.

>With MMS, ... to send notification of new mail over MMS would be
convoluted, since:
>	(1) new mail arrives at message store
>	(2) notification sent as MMS to client
>	(3) MMS arrives at server
>	(4) MMS server sends notification to client
>	(5) client brings up traffic channel and fetches MMS
>	(6) MMS client hands MMS to mail client
>	(7) mail client brings up traffic channel and fetches mail
(My omission in the first sentence for brevity)

Actually, it's not as bad as that from the client point of view, at
least on Symbian (S60 or UIQ), and I'm pretty sure on Windows Mobile
too.  The PIMAP client is just advised of the arrival of an MMS.  Steps
4-6 are all dealt with by the base OS or messaging layers, which are
opaque to an IMAP client application.
Similarly, there are many MMS senders that will accept an MMS via HTTP,
making steps 2-4 a single operation from the point of view of the mail
server.  So it need not be more complex than sending an SMS from the
point of view of the P-IMAP systems (client and server).

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.

Regards
Ben
EMCC Software Ltd


_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
lemonade at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade