Subject: [Simple] IM over the signaling connection

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:34:58 +0200

It seems that the possibility of sending MESSAGEs of sessions over the
signaling connection is being ignored.
I am not sure that there is a consensus not to use it.

It think that we can agree on sending MESSAGEs of sessions on the control
connection. We should keep the
header of the MESSAGEs to a necessary minimum and agree on a maximum length
of MESSAGEs to be sent
on the signaling connection. Given this, the impact on the control
connection will not be different from a one time
MESSAGE and NOTIFYs.

avshalom
Sametime/Lotus/IBM

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:28:21 -0500

It is not so much that it is being ignored as that the IESG has told us 
they will not approve it.

[email-masked] wrote:

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

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:46:57 -0500

That is correct. I have held further converse with the AD (Allison Mankin)
on the topic, and the position is that SIP is not and has not been designed
as an effective transport protocol, and it is therefore innapropriate to
transport multi-message sessions over SIP. It's simply too dangerous to turn
loose a protocol that lacks effective congestion avoidance.

And yes, Allison does seem to like bxxp as a message transport protocol . .
. of course, that's just my interpretation of what I thought I heard.

I suggest we give bxxp a reexamination relative to the requirements that
have been coming forth for a transport protocol for sessions.

--
Dean