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

Re: [Simple] New IM-specific feature



----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Kyzivat" <pkyzivat at cisco.com>
To: "Deepanshu Gautam" <deepanshu at huawei.com>
Cc: "Simple WG" <simple at ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Simple] New IM-specific feature




Deepanshu Gautam wrote:
When i say "protocols" i only mean to define a new XML schema (to carry
QA as instance of it) and a content-type (for labelling that QA), thats
it. I don't see any thing ugly in that. It has been done for other two
IM-specific feature already.

I hadn't realized you wanted to carry this info in a body part.

But then you would need to specify in which messages it is conveyed, and
what the semantics are of including it in those messages. What did you
have in mind? Were you thinking of using REGISTER and its response to
convey this? Or were you going to send this in a MESSAGE?
[DG] The MESSAGE is what i have in my mind.

I can agree with you on bit of a relation between QA and what you call
"IM-mail" and would like to consider it further. However, i can think of
a prominent difference i.e "IM-mail" will not allow user to choose from
the avaliable options in real time (i.e when it has received an IM)

About storage, i think that would not be on registrar. Can we consider
storage of QA as implementation specific? We just provide a mechanism
(XML schema/content-type) to deliver QA between two entities. How to
store them will be implementation specific. Some IM application server
(e.g OMA IM-XDMS) or provisioning server can do that. Will that make
sense?

The problem is that you have to pass the data in some message, and have
some reason to believe it will be received by something that will
process it as you expect. That implies some level of standardization of
the behavior.

(The long history of trouble with INFO is testament to what happens if
you don't address such issues.)

If I am to send the info in REGISTER, then I am counting on some
behavior by the registrar to do something with it. Its even more
important if I expect the *response* to the REGISTER to give me such data!
[DG] Let me go 1 step further in explanation
I would divide the whole work to be done in two steps.
1. QA creation - Here the QAs are created by UA
2. QA Usage - Here a QA is selected by UA from the avaliable list of UAs.
In step 1 UA will create QA and send to something (lets call it as QA Storer).
This QA storer will be implementation specific. We *will* standardize the
behaviour of this QA storer to *some extent* (leaving scope for addition).
It may be further implemented by other standard organization like OMA.
Step 2 will be straight forward: delivery of QA from QA Sender to QA
Receiver using XML schema in MESSAGE body.
Is this sounds feasible to you? Something which SIMPLE can do?

I still think this sounds like a provisioning problem.

Thanks,
Paul

Regards
Deepanshu

----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Kyzivat" <pkyzivat at cisco.com>
To: "Deepanshu Gautam" <deepanshu at huawei.com>
Cc: "Simple WG" <simple at ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Simple] New IM-specific feature




Deepanshu Gautam wrote:
inline with [DG]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Kyzivat" <pkyzivat at cisco.com>
To: "Deepanshu Gautam" <deepanshu at huawei.com>
Cc: "Simple WG" <simple at ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Simple] New IM-specific feature


Inline...

Deepanshu Gautam wrote:
Dear All,

I would like to propose a new IM-specific feature for SIMPLE, which i
would call as "Quick Answer(QA)". Allow me to explain about it
briefly.

In instant messaging system, it is useful to have some readily
available
IM (text, audio or video) which can be sent in case of the receiver
is
too busy to type/speak/record for a reply. User can create and
store IM
(QA) using a particular client device and can use them when required.
Creating and then storing on a single device may not be very useful
because user can log-in a particular IM system using different client
devices at different point of time. In that case QA created using one
client device will not be available to another client device.

I would like to propose a draft to solve this problem and perform the
needed standardization, which will further make this IM-feature
possible. Before moving forward I would like to get some initial
comment
from the group about this idea. You comments would be valuable.

Where do you imagine this new state would be stored?
And who/what would use it?
[DG] I don't see this as a new state (if you are referring to IM user
state
like "ideal", "active" defined in 3994). Irrespective of state, the
only
concerns here is that "an IM is received and user would like to
select from
a list of messages (here QA) as reply to that IM". Problem to solve:
how
to create and make that list of messages avaliable on various UAs.
I foresee these QA to be stored both on server and UA.[/DG]

Which server? The registrar?

IIUC you are then just proposing that the registrar provide storage for
attributes that the various UAs registering to an AOR would share?

That is a very slippery slope, since there are many pieces of
state/configuration that UAs might like to store or share.

Are you proposing a "database" that is shared by the various UAs for
an
AOR, that they would each update and retrieve from?
[DG]No, Actually i'm proposing protocol(s) to make that kind of
database
avaliable[/DG]

This is especially ugly when it calls for specific protocol additions to
SIP to maintain each piece of such state that comes along.

This sounds much more like provisioning information, to be maintained by
a provisioning server and made available to the controlled devices.

Would the sending of the answer still depend on a UA receiving the
message? Or do you expect that the answer will be sent even if there
is
no UA registered?
[DG] According to me, till now, it depends on UA receiving the message.
But,
it may be other way round too, if we have feasible
usecase/requirement.[/DG]

If you go that way, it becomes much more like a voicemail system.
(In this case, a "IM-mail" system.) Namely it is a UA of last resort for
responding to incoming requests if no other UA does. Its not really part
of a registrar, though it *might* be collocated with one.

This is not an unreasonable thing to do - its pretty common. But so far
there have been no proposals to standardize anything about this as part
of SIMPLE. (Nor have there been any to standardize voicemail systems.)

Thanks,
Paul

IMO this doesn't fit well with the simple model.

Thanks,
Paul

Regards
Deepanshu Gautam


------------------------------------------------------------------------


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