Glenn Parsons (gparsons@nortelnetworks.com)
Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:18:21 -0500
Folks,
I have attached the minutes the John took in Adelaide. I added a few minor
things to them based on the short summary I sent out right after the
meeting. Let us know if there are any comments before we send them to the
IETF for the archive CD.
Thanks,
Glenn.
----------------------------------
VPIM BOF Minutes
IETF 47, Adelaide
March 27, 2000
Minutes by: John W Noerenberg II
The usual agenda bashing left the agenda intact. During the meeting we
reviewed our WG status, covered VPIM v2 status, and discussed the
outstanding drafts for VPIM v3. The drafts included:
draft-ema-vpim-address-01.txt
draft-ema-vpimdir-schema-01.txt
draft-vaudreuil-vpimdir-avs-00.txt
draft-ema-vpimv3-goals-01.txt
draft-ema-vpim-simplev3-01.txt
draft-ema-vpim-voicemsg-00.txt
draft-ema-vpim-pndn-01.txt
draft-vaudreuil-enum-e164-00.txt
draft-ema-vpim-imap-01.txt
Glenn indicated that VPIM should be a WG shortly, they are waiting for the
new Apps AD to take over before creating new WGs.
Glenn's draft include changes necessary to advance VPIM v2 to DRAFT status.
Some changes remain to be made. In addition, v2 is gated by some normative
references which are not yet ready to advance to DRAFT.
VPIM v2 contains normative references to the vCard PROPOSED STANDARD, RFC
2426. It must be clear that use of vCARD is optional to remove the
dependency on vCard's progress.
These include the update to RFC 1830 (binary data in MIME), and RFC 2298
(message disposition notification), and RFC 1327 (X.400 - 822 mapping).
Advance of RFC 2298 depends on interoperability verification for MDNs which
are unrelated to VPIM. The VPIM WG needs to monitor MDN's progress. John
Noerenberg, Graham Klyne, Emily Candel, Greg White have volunteered to
investigate MDN's status further. A similar situation exists for RFC 1894 et
al (delivery status notification). Greg agreed to discuss moving this
forward with co-author Keith offline. Normative references to RFC 1327 are
not needed. The attendees concurred the language can be changed to eliminate
the reference to RFC 1327.
We discussed what to do in the case that some part of a multipart/voice
message was unrenderable. The discussion was between whether the
uninterpretable part should be discarded, or if the entire message should be
rejected. The attendees at the meeting recommended that compliant
implementations should render as much of the message as possible. The
protocol should specify which part types are acceptable, and that other
types should not be sent. In particular, text/directory is an acceptable
type.
Glenn led a brief discussion about the address draft. He presented the
format of service selectors based on RFC 2303 and outlined their use. Some
of the attendees questioned what additionally utility this offered over MIME
labeling in the body. We moved on without resolving this question.
Next we considered the schema draft and vpimdir. Both of these drafts have
similar goals, but provide slightly incompatible schema methods. Greg
offered to attempt resolving the differences.
We considered the enum draft. This is subsumed by the ENum WG. The AD
recommended the problem addressed in this draft should be incorporated into
the protocol(s) developed by ENum. The VPIM WG would be left with
describing how the VPIM application uses the Enum protocol.
Glenn introduced discussion of the Goals document. The attendees considered
whether VPIM v3 should be a revision of V2 or something more focused on
Internet Voice Mail (IVM). The goals document doesn't require compliance
with the v2 protocol. We discussed whether the delivery semantics should
permit messages parts to be delivered or whether messages should be rejected
if any part is undeliverable. The semantics concerning sensitivity labels
need to encompass the possibility that legacy systems will not interpret v3
labeling. During discussion of the goals, we discussed whether there exist
any encumbrances over the use of WAV. Someone asserted that Microsoft will
indeed release WAV for use. However, Jutta Degener raised the possibility
that Phillips has a patent over the GSM 6.10 encoder/decoder (Pat #4932061).
This must be investigated further.
We next turned our attention to the simplev3 and voicemsg drafts. These seem
to overlap in purpose. Glenn agreed to take on the task of reconciling the
two and producing a single successor.
Eric Burger led a discussion of the PNDN draft. Partial Non-Delivery-
Notifications are motivated by the perceived desire of senders to know what
parts of a message are deliverable to a receiver, especially for legacy
systems. During the discussion some attendees raised questions over the
efficacy of PNDNs compared to DSNs and worried about whether legacy systems
could usefully employ them. They indicated that there are several obstacles
to realizing the aims of partial delivery notification. We were running out
of time, extended discussion was not possible.
We briefly discussed the IMAP extensions for VPIM, and recommended that be
offered as a personal submission rather than as a WG document.
There were a number of topics which could not be discussed as extensively as
those attending the meeting would have liked. As a result, Glenn invited the
attendees to organize Bar BOFs to continue the topics, in particular one to
examine the IVM / VPIM v3 goals.
With our business concluded, we were chased out by the group eager to get on
with the next meeting. Besides, the promise of tea and biscuits was making
the natives restless. So we fled the room.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Apr 18 2000 - 23:18:45 IDT