Subject: [Fwd: Re: Re: [Simple] Implicit MESSAGE sessions revisited]]

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:44:38 -0400

Dean - there probably is no point in continuing this debate because it
is going nowhere. I think you are trying to reinvent the wheel, but I
presume you feel otherwise.

    Paul

-------- Original Message --------
   Subject: Re: Re: [Simple] Implicit MESSAGE sessions revisited]
      Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:34:55 -0500
      From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
        To: "Paul Kyzivat" <[email-masked]>,"simple"
            <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>

 Response: 1) Bob's IM client responds to the address indicated in the
"From:" field of the received message.2) Ann creates a new "paging
conference session", understood only on her system which is doing the
mixing/replicating. The message to Bob has a "From:" of "ann" and ann's
application handles the replicating to Joe. --
Dean

     ----- Original Message -----
     From: Paul Kyzivat
     To: simple
     Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 5:07 PM
     Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Simple] Implicit MESSAGE sessions
     revisited]
      Dean,

     > Joe sends a message to Ann.> Ann forwards to Bob.> Bob
     replies to Joe. This reply carries the sessionID from Joe's
     original message.> Joe's app realizes his session is now with
     Bob and sends further messages in the session to Bob.> Joe and
     Bob exchange many messages in this session.> Ann has a life.

     Bunch of problems with this scenario:

     1) how does Bob reply to Joe? Does Bob's IM client offer a
     reply function that extracts Joe's address? Or does Bob
     manually initiate a new IM session with Bob?

     If the former, then clearly the IM protocol must have a more
     or less complete call control mechanism of its own,
     duplicating what is in SIP.

     If the latter, then how does the sessionID get into the reply?
     Presumably Bob would have to type it in. Not likely in the
     real world.

     2) How is this case distinguished from one where Ann wants to
     conference Bob in? Ann may be acting as a local mixer, passing
     Joe's messages on to Bob after reading them. In your scenario,
     this would look exactly the same to Bob, but the action he
     should take is different - he should reply to Ann, so that she
     can see the reply and relay it back to Joe.

     Your proposed solution can't deal with the multiple
     possibilities. There are many useful topologies that can be
     established using SIP. Do you propose to have SIMPLE reinvent
     all of them independently?

         Paul

     -------- Original Message --------

        Subject: Re: [Simple] Implicit MESSAGE sessions revisited
           Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:29:34 -0500
           From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
             To: "Mark Watson" <[email-masked]>,"simple"
                 <[email-masked]>
     References: <[email-masked]>

     Assume page-mode messages have a "sessionID" in their payload.
     Joe sends a message to Ann.Ann forwards to Bob.Bob replies to
     Joe. This reply carries the sessionID from Joe's original
     message.Joe's app realizes his session is now with Bob and
     sends further messages in the session to Bob.Joe and Bob
     exchange many messages in this session.Ann has a life. -_
     Dean

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Mark Watson
          To: 'Dean Willis' ; simple
          Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 12:59 PM
          Subject: RE: [Simple] Implicit MESSAGE sessions
          revisited
          (1), it's not just a question of optimising the
          message routing, it's also that in routing the
          initial INVITE I may use up certain resources or
          require user intervention, and I don't want to
          repeat all that for every message in the 'chat
          session'.
          For example, Ann has all incoming sessions presented
          to their SIP client but can hit a key to forward
          them to her assistant Bob. If it's an IM chat
          session, and Bob gets into a long conversation, Ann
          does not want to see every message, and have to hit
          a key to forward it.Anns client could forward
          'subsequent' messages automatically, but then Ann's
          client is implicitly taking on a notion of a
          'session' and we are into the implicit session setup
          debate again - how does it detect when this session
          has ended and a new one started ? What happens if
          Ann turns her client off before Bob has finished
          chatting ? Ann could instruct her proxy to forwared
          SIP requests to Bob, but perhaps she doesn't want
          to. Perhaps she wants new calls to go to her mobile,
          but the rest of Bob's chat session to continue
          unaffected.So it's not just a message routing
          optimisation, there are other resources being
          optimised too (Ann's time).(2) SIP messages are not
          media, sure, but Instant Messages are. Instant
          Messages are not 'user to user signalling' either,
          because they are not signalling - they are a
          communication between the human end-users, not
          between the equipment facilitating that
          communication (which is how I would characterise
          'signalling' here). So perhaps SIP messages should
          not be used to carry Instant Messages - but this is
          a different point entirely....Mark

               -----Original Message-----
               From: Dean Willis
               [mailto:[email-masked]]
               Sent: 18 September 2001 15:46
               To: simple
               Subject: Re: [Simple] Implicit MESSAGE
               sessions revisited
                I agree with #1,sortof. The best (only?)
               justfication for INVITE-bounded message
               sessions is the use of Record-Route to
               allow proxies that don't need to be in the
               route to opt out. This allows the
               SIP-network to be "self optimizing" for
               message routing. However, such SIP paths
               may be necessarily NOT end-to-end. For
               example, putting a SIP UA behind a
               firewall proxy will require that messages
               transit the firewall proxy. This is easily
               accomplished with record-route. Remember,
               all the "signaling privacy" requirements
               like  calling-party-ID and address-hiding
               apply to SIP messages. We already have
               mechanisms to meet those requirements for
               SIP traffic -- reusing them for messages
               is obviously functional. I disagree with
               requirement #2 -- SIP messages are
               inherently NOT media. They are, in effect
               "user to user signaling". This is
               consistent with my earlier position on the
               use of phone input (DTMF) as "user to
               system signaling", not media. --
               Dean

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Mark Watson
                    To: 'Dean Willis' ; Patil
                    Basavaraj (NET/Dallas) ; 'ext
                    Ben Campbell'
                    Cc: simple
                    Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001
                    12:02 PM
                    Subject: RE: [Simple] Implicit
                    MESSAGE sessions revisited
                    Dean,I agree that they're
                    independent. On the first one, I
                    had thought that the idea of IM
                    'sessions' fulfilled two key
                    requirements:1) I want to find
                    my desired called party, and
                    then exchange multiple messages
                    with this personSome of these
                    things which can happen (in the
                    network/UEs) as a SIP message
                    finds the desired end-user may
                    take time/cost money/require
                    user interaction, and I don't
                    want to repeat them once I have
                    found the person I want to chat
                    to. Also, there is no guarantee
                    that repeating the process at a
                    later time will get me to the
                    same end-user. So, I want to be
                    able to do a 'session setup' and
                    then send messages directly to
                    the person I've found.Of course,
                    I could just treat the first
                    message as an implicit session
                    setup, but this seems to be out
                    of fashion.2) I want IM to be
                    just another media that I can
                    negotiate, add & remove from a
                    session etc.Again, I could do
                    something clever with Call IDs
                    to connect a MESSAGE message
                    with a pre-existing session etc.
                    etc., but why should I make an
                    exception for this one kind of
                    media. If I do that, then no
                    capabilities that I have now or
                    invent in the future which are
                    supposed to be 'media type
                    independent', will work for IM,
                    and I will have to be hacking
                    the IM system constantly to keep
                    up.Did you disagree with these
                    requirements, or just with the
                    implementation ?Regards...Mark

                         -----Original
                         Message-----
                         From: Dean Willis
                         [mailto:[email-masked]]

                         Sent: 17 September
                         2001 17:32
                         To: Watson, Mark
                         [MAIFP:EP11:EXCH];
                         Patil Basavaraj
                         (NET/Dallas); 'ext Ben
                         Campbell'
                         Cc: simple
                         Subject: Re: [Simple]
                         Implicit MESSAGE
                         sessions revisited
                         Both, actually. I
                         believe the issues are
                         independent. --
                         Dean

                              -----
                              Original
                              Message
                              -----
                              From: Mark
                              Watson
                              To: 'Dean
                              Willis' ;
                              Patil
                              Basavaraj
                              (NET/Dallas)
                              ; 'ext Ben
                              Campbell'
                              Cc: simple
                              Sent:
                              Monday,
                              September
                              17, 2001
                              9:39 AM
                              Subject: RE:
                              [Simple]
                              Implicit
                              MESSAGE
                              sessions
                              revisited
                               Dean,

                              Do you mean
                              that you
                              don't see
                              the
                              advantage of
                              using INVITE
                              to set up an
                              IM 'session'
                              (indicating
                              this in the
                              SDP), or
                              just that
                              once such a
                              session is
                              set up,
                              there is no
                              need for the
                              'media' to
                              use any
                              different
                              protocol
                              than that
                              used for
                              'paging' ?

                              I think
                              there are a
                              lot of
                              reasons why
                              IM
                              'sessions'
                              set up using
                              INVITE just
                              like any
                              other SIP
                              session,
                              make sense.
                              I don't care
                              much yet
                              what the
                              transport
                              protocol
                              then is for
                              the IMs in
                              the session.

                              Sorry if
                              this is
                              covering old
                              ground.

                              ...Mark

                              -----Original
                              Message-----

                              > From: Dean
                              Willis
                              [mailto:[email-masked]]

                              > Sent: 15
                              September
                              2001 05:31
                              > To: Patil
                              Basavaraj
                              (NET/Dallas);
                              'ext Ben
                              Campbell'
                              > Cc: simple

                              > Subject:
                              Re: [Simple]
                              Implicit
                              MESSAGE
                              sessions
                              revisited
                              > Just as
                              MESSAGE for
                              sessions has
                              all the
                              wasted
                              overhead of
                              > headers
                              and
                              > routing
                              mechanisms
                              designed to
                              find users
                              and traverse

                              > firewalls
                              (assuming
                              > you think
                              this is a
                              waste), so
                              does BEEP.
                              > I
                              personally
                              have yet to
                              see the need
                              for message
                              sessions as
                              > a
                              specialized
                              > transport.

                              > I think
                              "pager"
                              messages
                              carrying a
                              session-ID
                              and sequence
                              number can
                              > provide
                              the same
                              user
                              experience.
                              > --
                              > dean
                              > -----
                              Original
                              Message
                              -----
                              > From:
                              "Patil
                              Basavaraj
                              (NET/Dallas)"
                              <[email-masked]>

                              > To: "'ext
                              Ben
                              Campbell'"
                              <[email-masked]>

                              > Cc:
                              <[email-masked]>

                              > Sent:
                              Friday,
                              September
                              14, 2001
                              1:07 PM
                              > Subject:
                              RE: [Simple]
                              Implicit
                              MESSAGE
                              sessions
                              revisited
                              > > One of
                              the
                              protocols
                              that has
                              been
                              suggested
                              for use
                              instead of
                              > > MESSAGE
                              is BEEP. Are
                              there any
                              serious
                              concerns *at
                              this time*
                              > > why BEEP
                              would not be
                              good eniugh
                              for IM
                              Sessions?
                              -Basavaraj
                              _______________________________________________

                              > > simple
                              mailing list

                              [email-masked]

                              http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple

                              _______________________________________________

                              > simple
                              mailing list

                              [email-masked]

                              http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple