Glenn Parsons (gparsons@nortelnetworks.com)
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:00:43 -0500
> Issue 2: Backwards Compatibility with VPIM
> Given the differences in semantics between VPIM and IVM, will we ever have
> VPIM systems connected to the open Internet? By connected, I mean that
> they
> will accept messages from anywhere?
>
Yes, if they are in VPIM v2 format. We've proved that with our demos and my
mailbox is open to receive VPIM messages (though no one is sending me any
:-)
And, one could argue, if we could have managed to get the G.726 codec on all
the desktops and teach all the clients about the VPIM v2 MIME format we
wouldn't need IVM...
> I propose we state that if a voice
> messaging system wishes to receive arbitrary messages from Internet
> clients, it must implement IVM. This renders the IVM back-off to VPIM
> issue
> moot.
>
I do not see how this makes it moot.
First, an IVM system may not be able to receive an arbitrary message from
the Internet. What if it is in some special codec that you can't deal with?
What IVM is doing (I hope) is allowing more clients the ability to play a
message and also the possibility to create one. The IVM profile is unlikely
to be the default setup on all desktops. Still an IVM system is more likely
to be able to play a 'voice email' than a VPIM system.
Second, the IVM to VPIM back-off is intended to define another piece that
needs to be standardized. It is always useful to suggest an appropriate
fallback mechanism.
Finally, it does not make sense to have a new voice mail system that cannot
communicate with the old voice mail system. That is, an IVM VM system that
cannot 'back off' to communicate with a VPIM VM system. Despite the fact
that everyone will not implement this, I think it is still an important
feature to standardise. Else we those of us who want to implement this will
come up with different ways of doing it.
Cheers,
Glenn.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 23 2000 - 16:01:19 IDT