Glenn Parsons (gparsons@nortelnetworks.com)
Sat, 25 Mar 2000 03:10:36 -0500
>
> I don't want to get into the rathole of argueing a definition of UM.
>
That is my point.
> 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".
>
Remember that we are agreeing to not define what UM is, so how do we know
what UM smells like? :-)
>
> 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.
>
I am suggesting that we only profile (and possibly extend) the pieces of
Internet Mail that meet the goal of transfering voice messages. If this
produces a result that would be useful for someone's definition of UM then
that is a valuable byproduct, but not the main goal of this group.
Make sense?
Cheers,
Glenn.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Mar 25 2000 - 11:21:30 IDT