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

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:32:59 -0400

> I disagree with requirement #2 -- SIP messages are inherently NOT
media.
> They are, in effect "user to user signaling".

I presume you mean "SIP MESSAGEs" rather than "SIP messages"???
That is an  argument for why MESSAGE shouldn't have been added to SIP,
or an argument for why MESSAGE shouldn't be used for session-oriented
IM. But it isn't a very strong argument against having a
session-oriented IM that is negotiated with INVITE and SDP.

If I call you on the phone and talk, we are exchanging media, but if I
happen to be deaf and want to use text to do the same thing it is
signalling rather than media???

I can accept that a paging message, where very likely there will be no
associated reply, might not be media. But when it is intended as an
interactive conversation then I believe it is appropriately considered
media.

    Paul

-------- Original Message --------
   Subject: Re: [Simple] Implicit MESSAGE sessions revisited
      Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:46:11 -0500
      From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
        To: "simple" <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>

 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