Subject: [Simple] Consensus on INVITE-established IM

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:05:22 -0500

It sounds like pretty much no one out there is vehemently opposed to the
concept of INVITE-established IM sessions (independent of what, exactly, the
transport for these IM will be), and that a rough consensus supports this
protocol concept. If there is in fact any new argument to be made for
excluding this concept, this would be a good time for someone to raise it.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc
SIMPLE co-chair

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:20:39 -0500

We seem to have concensus on that point.

I do have a requirements question, though: If we _do_ have a concept of 
INVITE-established IM sessions, does that session have to be able to 
cross a CPIM compliant gateway, perhaps to another protocol that does 
not support sessions?

My first reaction is to say yes, but I can think of a lot of strangeness 
here. For example, if I think I am end a session, but the opposite 
end-point does not know about sessions, how can it send me a message 
that is part of the session? How can it send me a message that is _not_ 
part of the session?

Peterson, Jon wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple
>