Subject: RE: [Simple] MESSAGE sessions - over TCP

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:30:14 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Petri K. Koskelainen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 1:21 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Simple] MESSAGE sessions - over TCP
> 
> Is there a consensus that INVITE-established IM messaging 
> session idea is ok ? (in addition to one shot MESSAGEs)
> 
> 
> If we can agree on that, then we can continue with other 
> problems, like:
> - messaging protocol/format inside a session (e.g. SIP 
> MESSAGE over TCP)
> - direct end-to-end vs. via signaling proxies vs. via IM servers 
> - compression (hopefully this does not have to be discussed here)
>  
> There should be a resolution on this asap.

Yes, part of the reason we are circling around is that we have not been able
to break the problem into pieces. Clearly the first is the question Petri
has asked - can we agree that a session model for messaging (session model
being to wrap it in INVITE/BYE, and the messages are viewed as a media
stream.) THis says nothing about how they are transported, and wouldn't rule
out sending them over the signaling channel.

I strongly support this need for a session model. I think most have
expressed support for it, with a few notable exceptions (Dean, I think).

I think its time for the chairs to make a ruling on consensus on whether to
pursue a session model as defined above. 

We would still retain the paging model of course, 

-Jonathan R.

---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:50:36 -0400

I agree with this - I believe it is essential!
I proposed more or less the same thing three weeks ago, but got no
responses. 

	Paul Kyzivat
	Cisco Systems

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
[snip]
> > session idea is ok ? (in addition to one shot MESSAGEs)
[snip] 
> We would still retain the paging model of course,

Subject: Re: [Simple] Sessions of MESSAGEs
From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 10:51:13 -0400
List-Id: SIP for Presence <simple.mailman.dynamicsoft.com>

I am reserving judgement on the basic point of this thread - whether it
is a good or bad thing to permit an IM session to be transported as a
series of SIP MESSAGEs. 

But I would like to propose some basic groundrules that any proposed
mechanism for IM sessions must follow:

-  An IM session must be initiated with a SIP INVITE transaction,
   using an SDP media description to request the IM session.

-  Like any other media session within a SIP call, it must be
   possible to add, drop, or redirect an IM session to a new
   destination through use of reINVITE, by exchanging revised SDP.

I am trying to avoid a solution where IM is treated differently than
other media, preventing reasonable management of multimedia calls. When
I receive an INVITE, I should have the opportunity to accept or refuse
any or all of the offered media by way of the SDP I return.

If a proposal doesn't meet these groundrules, then I don't believe it
belongs as a part of SIP. If it does, then of course it still must meet
all the other concerns that have been raised in this thread. These
groundrules are not a showstopper for using sessions of MESSAGEs -
Jonathon at one point floated a proposal for m=message that would
probably be adequate.

	Paul Kyzivat
	Cisco Systems
_______________________________________________
simple mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple