Subject: [Simple] (no subject)

From: "Sriram Parameswar"<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:18:37 -0600

Jonathan wrote:
<<quote>>
I think the difference between what Aki and you are saying is merely
pedantic. The basic idea behind my presentation was that, with the new loose
routing capabilities of bis, we would no longer need a separate protocol for
IM transport. We could use regular SIP, with the MESSAGE method, in a
particular usage scenario (pre-loaded routes with all tcp transport, for
example). Thus, there would no longer be IMTP as a separate protocol, merely
a draft on the usage of the MESSAGE method in this modality. Indeed, I would
argue that such a usage description belongs in draft-ietf-simple-im-session.

<<endquote>>

Jonathan,

"Just a question for clarification" using 3GPP-speak. When you say we will
use loose routing and full blown SIP (as opposed to a limited header set
defined in IMTP), are you implying that the MESSAGE will now follow the
exact same route as the signaling? Also are the other SIP headers applicable
to MESSAGE now going to be allowed in IM sessions?

Thanks,

Sriram