[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Simple] Issue 6: Consolidation



Does consolidation need to be standardized? If we don't say anything about consolidation, do we prevent a list-exploder from consolidating as a matter of local policy?

On Nov 8, 2005, at 4:24 AM, Burger, Eric wrote:

This would be an important decision.  Everything becomes so easy if we
don't have consolidation.

Can we punt it? My vote is "yes." Hisham's vote is "yes." Anyone else
for "yes" or "no"?


-----Original Message-----
From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:hisham.khartabil at telio.no]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:59 PM
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: simple at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Simple] Issue 6: Consolidation

Actually, some parts of the draft talks about consolidation of
responses and other parts of the draft say that consolidation was
removed from the draft. I don't like the consolidation concept, mainly
because it creates state in the B2BUA that is not really necessary.

I think having individual MDNs delivered to the IM sender is enough.

Hisham


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

The IMDN draft says that whether a B2BUA consolidates responses is a
local to the B2BUA matter.

Should this be negotiable (via a Requires: CPIM header)?

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


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


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