Subject: RE: [Simple] IM: A session or not

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:03:28 -0700

There are indeed many benefits in having actual messaging sessions, but
we should not loose the potential benefits of sending messages through
the "signaling channel" when appropriate: firewall traversal, support of
mobility, immediate page, etc. So, if we go forward with the plan of
documenting an "m=message" media in SDP, we will need to specify at
least three options:

1) Send messages to a specified TCP-IP (or UDP-IP) address,
2) Send messages to a SIP URL,
3) Send messages "on this channel", i.e. using the same route as other
signaling messages in this session.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:34:52 -0500

> From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
>...if we go forward with the plan of

I think (1) and (2) are basically the same situation, and are covered
by Jonathan's proposal. Situation (3) -- an instant messaging session
with a distinct beginning and end, but using the proxy network -- is
a new case that needs to have syntax defined for it.

/a

---

From: "Henning G. Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 14:13:34 -0400

> a new case that needs to have syntax defined for it.

This is basically one or more MESSAGE within the call-id/call-leg
context of an INVITE. Or am I missing something here?

-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs