Charles Eliot (charle@Exchange.Microsoft.com)
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:21:04 -0800
Glenn:
I'm puzzled by this remark: "BTW, I have no intent of expanding this to
'UM'. If what we do is generally useful, then great. However, I do not
want to further complicate the goals and solutions with unified messaging
scenarios. Agreeable?"
I don't want to get into the rathole of argueing a definition of UM. I'm
sure, however, that we can agree that storing and transporting multimedia
messages is an integral part of UM. If in IVM we are promoting a multimedia
standard that extends from desktop to desktop, it seems to me perverse to
say "It may look and smell like UM, but it isn't".
It would help me understand where you are coming from if you would specify
what parts of the UM story you are suggested by excluded.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Parsons [mailto:gparsons@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 5:01 AM
To: IETF VPIM List
Cc: EMA VPIM List
Subject: RE: [VPIM] Re: draft-ema-vpim-simpleV3-01.txt
My intent was to cover an end-to-end scenario in the profile. To me IMAP
was the obvious choice, but I presume we could include something like Webdav
as well.
Eric's point is should we include the client server part. I would suggest
yes, unless this becomes so big that we have to split it up. So, I don't
think it is necessary to have a separate document for:
* IVM MIME profile
* IVM ESMTP profile
* IVM MDN/DSN profile
* IVM IMAP profile
* IVM LDAP/DNS profile
* etc.
I think we need to cover all of these, and most can be covered off in a
paragraph. Therefore, a separate document for each is overkill.
What do you think?
BTW, I have no intent of expanding this to 'UM'. If what we do is generally
useful, then great. However, I do not want to further complicate the goals
and solutions with unified messaging scenarios. Agreeable?
Glenn.
----------
From: Eric.Burger@centigram.com
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 9:49 pm
To: clausen@connsys.com
Cc: 'IETF VPIM List'; 'EMA VPIM List'
Subject: [VPIM] Re: draft-ema-vpim-simpleV3-01.txt
IVM describes a MIME profile. My issue isn't IMAP vs. some other
mail
access protocol. Rather, the issue is whether a message retrieval
"requirement" belongs in a MIME profile document.
I agree, today's best practices indicate IMAP4 for message
transport. The
question is whether this is an appropriate subject matter for a profile
Internet Draft.
From: Eric.Burger@centigram.com
> Issue 1: IMAP (Section 9)
> Why should implementations support IMAP? Is this really a part of IVM?
Are
> we saying the profile defines a Unified Messaging system? I would propose
> we stay away from that issue and focus on the profile (exchange
protocol).
> By specifying retrieval as part of the protocol, we're limiting a lot of
> IVM-capable legacy voice messaging systems.
to me, imap is the obvious mail access protocol for ivm devices to
use. other protocols will certainly work, but imap is the best choice
(it's a standard protocol, supports multi-accessed mailboxes, and
has a remote-store model). given this, i think the language in the
draft ("SHOULD") is appropriate. imap is not mandated, but
strongly recommended.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 23 2000 - 18:20:59 IDT