Glenn Parsons (gparsons@nortelnetworks.com)
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:52:08 -0400
Folks,
Thanks to Greg White for transcribing his handwritten notes.
Here are the VPIM minutes from IETF 50. Let us know if there are any
comments.
I will be sending them in to the Proceedings folks at the end of the
week.
Cheers,
Glenn.
Voice Profile for Internet Mail WG
IETF 50 - Wednesday, March 21, 2001
Lunch BOF
===================================
Chairs: Glenn Parsons <gparsons@nortelnetworks.com>
John Noerenberg <jwn2@qualcomm.com>
Notes: Greg White <gregwhite@lucent.com>
Glenn arranged a Lunch BOF for all interested people. This was done because the
formal WG meeting was not until Friday morning, when many people were scheduled
to have already left the conference. The BOF was held in Eric Burger's suite,
and Eric also picked up the tab for lunch. Thank you, Eric.
IMAP Extensions
---------------
BINARY: The IMAPEXT folks had a BOF and came to an agreement on how to determine
decoded message size. A new FETCH command attribute BINARY.SIZE has been
created. One would perform a FETCH BODYSTRUCTURE, and then a FETCH BINARY.SIZE.
The BINARYSTRUCTURE attribute has been eliminated. Another draft will come out
with these updates.
CHANNEL: The first draft went out, but there was no notification that it went
out. The draft is in rough template form; lots of information is still
missing. It turns out that what Greg Vaudreuil wanted to do (get several body
parts as concatenated segments) is not doable because of partial failure
conditions. It was also noted that the partially-qualified URI specification
needs work. The question was raised as to whether or not the CHANNEL feature
was really needed, and the response was to do some profiling to determine how we
want to use this feature.
NOTE: It was determined that the above drafts would be treated as individual
submissions, rather than IMAPEXT WG submissions. It was also decided that the
mailing list at <ietf-imap-voice@imc.org> would be used to discuss these drafts,
in order to save VPIM folks from signing up for the IMAPEXT list, and vice
versa. To subscribe, send mail to <ietf-imap-voice-request@imc.org>.
MDN Revisions:
--------------
John Noerenberg has developed an MDN interoperability checklist. The question
was raised as to how this information would be obtained. Suggestions were to
issue a WG call for contributions to the list, or perhaps to post a call for
contributions to the notary list. We still need to determine who will make the
document revisions. After the revs are made, Ned Freed will need to review
them.
DSN Revisions:
--------------
It was determined that we do not need a DSN interoperability checklist;
instead, only clarifications to the documents are needed. Also, it was noted
that the rules concerning the Final-Recipient: field need to be loosened just a
bit. Hopefully, some new drafts will appear in the May timeframe.
Critical Content:
-----------------
The issue was "Is it wrong to have a "criticality" parameter in the Content-
Disposition: field?" After some discussion, it was decided that defining the
criticality parameter for that field is the right thing to do.
Codecs:
-------
The debate continues. Does there need to be a RIFF header or a WAV header on a
voice segment? What kind of filename extension do we use? Are there enough
desktop players out there that play raw data? It was decided that the safe
thing to do from the sender's point of view is to send a header. Then the
question was where does the header definition go - in the VPIM spec or a
different spec? What are the Microsoft IPR issues with the header? Should we
push them to resolve the issue or just move forward without them? It was
decided that the way to move forward was to determine the codec requirements on
the receiver, then fashion the requirements for the sender.
3GPP:
-----
A general discussion was held on the messaging activity in 3GPP (as a result of
Last meeting's discussion). The 3GPP MMS WG is looking at the aspects (e.g.,
working mailbox (IMAP) or non-mailbox (POP)). No specific action was decided.
Voice Profile for Internet Mail WG
IETF 50 - Friday, March 23, 2001
Formal Meeting
===================================
Chairs: Glenn Parsons <gparsons@nortelnetworks.com>
John Noerenberg <jwn2@qualcomm.com>
Notes: Greg White <gregwhite@lucent.com>
Glenn presented the agenda, which didn't get bashed at all. Glenn also made the
point that we may need to start thinking about how the work in the IDN WG
(Internationalized Domain Names) and MIDTAX BOF (Middle Box Taxonomy) affects
the work in this group. Glenn then presented some WG milestones that can be
found on the WG webpage.
VPIM ISSUES
===========
VPIM v2, rev. 2:
----------------
Still in the process of trying to move the spec to Draft Standard. Some fixes
need to be made, and ambiguities need to be cleared up, but the big issue is
making sure all the references are normative. The following need to be moved to
Draft Standard:
- MDN: John Noerenberg has developed an interoperability checklist (see
Lunch BOF).
- DSN: Greg Vaudreuil & Keith Moore will be pushing these, except the
Enhanced Mail System Status Codes spec, which will be reworked by
Ned Freed.
- Image/TIFF: being pushed by the FAX WG.
- vCard & Text/Directory: being dropped from spec.
There has not been a new version of the draft issued since the last IETF. Glenn
suggested that we should get ready to do a WG Last Call on the following drafts:
VPIM v2r2 (including multipart/voice-message), Toll Quality Voice (32KADPCM)
Registration, Content-Duration.
VPIM Addressing:
----------------
It was reported that WG Last Call is complete, and we are waiting for the editor
to make some small updates before forwarding the draft to the AD.
Voice Message Routing Service:
------------------------------
Based on ENUM, use ENUM to get information or LDAP URL. Document is ready for
WG Last Call.
Voice Messaging Directory Service:
----------------------------------
Editors need to clean up the ASN.1 and BNF. The editors also need to add codec
identification. NOTE: this draft no longer exists in the IETF I-D repository.
VPIM Website Status:
--------------------
EMA used to host the website vpim.org; this site is now temporarily
unavailable. However, these pages can be found at http://welcome.to/vpim. It
turns out that the reason for the website problem is that the management of the
EMA has been transferred to The Open Group. The Open Group will host an EMA
Forum, which in turn will manage a VPIM WG. The focus of this WG will be
marketing & education and sponsoring interoperability events. It was noted that
Declarations of Compatability & Interoperability can be found on the Interop
website, and that results from the last bakeoff will be formatted and placed
here in order to support the move of VPIM v2r2 to Draft Standard.
FAX WG Update:
--------------
Claudio Allocchio reported that the FAX Addressing drafts need to be reviewed by
Ned before they are submitted for IETF Last Call.
ENUM WG Update:
---------------
Rich Shockey made the following presentation: ENUM WG did not meet this time,
because the core protocol work is done (several drafts need to be finalized),
and the discussion forums have moved to a highly political realm. He mentioned
that at the ITU-T meetings in Geneva, an ENUM workshop was given to global PTT
regulators. The outcome of this workshop was that ITU Study Group 2 is to
create an ad-hoc group to develop a document for implementing ENUM among member
states. RFC 2916 says to follow the national dialing plan, so ENUM
administration becomes a nation-state responsibility. Recent activity shows
that RFC 2916 will be implemented on a global scale. Also, there has been some
minor discussion between the ITU & IAB on using e164.arpa as the global tree for
ENUM.
Swedish PTT regulators were to have presented a report to the Swedish government
on ENUM in Sweden on 4/1/01. The Netherlands, Belgium, & France are interested
in ENUM testing as soon as possible. The U.S. has formed an ad-hoc group under
Study Group A within the State Department. During the week following IETF,
presentation were to have been made in Washington, D.C. outlining how ENUM
should be implemented in the U.S.
Rich predicts that the actual deployment of zones within e164.arpa is 4Q2001 at
the earliest. Rich stated that VPIM can deploy on e164, and that a couple of
companies have testbeds available with web-based, self-provisioning databases.
SIP WG Update:
--------------
Rohan Mahy was scheduled to report the status of the SIP MWI draft, but he did
not show up at our meeting.
IVM ISSUES
==========
Glenn made the statement that to bring Voice Mail into the E-Mail world, our
success still lies with educating the email folks. The email folks are still
worried that some aspects of the IVM work does not fit into the traditional
email model.
IVM Goals:
----------
Emily Candell gave a presentation on this draft, noting that nothing major
changed since the last IETF. After some discussion regarding the purpose of the
draft, it was decided that this draft should be targeted for Informational
status. After this IETF, and perhaps after some further codec word tweaking, the
draft will be submitted for WG Last Call for Informational status. The
question asked as to why this document wasn't called IVM Requirements – the
author agreed that this was probably a better name and would make the change.
IVM:
----
This draft still requires minor editorial changes, along with a description of
the codec.
Message Context:
----------------
Eric Burger presented the status of this draft. Changes from -04.txt to -05.txt
include better English, corrected ABNF, removed Video-Message and added
Multimedia-Message to the list of message context types, and improved the
definition of the Text-Message type. Eric asked Ned how to set up a new IANA
registry for Message Context Types. Ned replied that there is a document
explaining how to do it, and that Michelle at iana@iana.org could be contacted
for more information. Ned also mentioned that the instructions for registering
a new value should appear in this draft. Eric also wants to discuss the
following issue on the list: is there a need for adding SMS-Message as a context
type that is different from Text-Message of high priority, or is there a need for
a "high-priority Text-Message" context type. The plan is to issue -06.txt for
WG Last Call after this issue is resolved, the new IANA registry is set up, and
other small changes are made.
Critical Content:
-----------------
Eric also presented the status of this draft. Changes from -02.txt to -03.txt
include the use of Content Gateway terminology, chapter reorganization, and
cosmetic changes. Eric gave some background on why he chose to create a new
parameter for the Content-Disposition field over create a new parameter for the
Content-Type field or creating a Content-Criticality field. The plan for
-04.txt is to use the new Content-Disposition parm, clean up the meaning of
IMPORTANT, reaffirm MDN/DSN rules. Also planned is a complimentary MDN
Notification Options draft.
Codecs:
-------
After Glenn presented a slide showing the history of codec selection for VPIM
v2, VPIM v3, IVM, etc., Glenn took a vote on the following:
What codecs are mandatory to receive/play for IVM?
1) MS-GSM packaged in WAV (audio/wav)
2) raw G.711 (audio/basic)
3) both 1) & 2)
The consensus of the room was for option 3) both, and this proposal will be
taken to the list for confirmation.
IMAP Extensions:
----------------
This was basically a short rehash of the conversation from the Lunch BOF. Glenn
then asked for volunteers to work on profiles to help explain how the new
CHANNEL command would be used. Glenn said he would work on a profile for audio
playback on a telephone, and Eric said he would work on a profile to stream
video playback to a desktop viewer. A standing question is should these
profiles go into the CHANNEL spec. Some concern was voiced that profile work
would progress at different rates because of different levels of importance to
different people.
Voice Messaging Client Behavior:
--------------------------------
Plan is to submit the draft for WG Last Call for Informational status.
Calling Line ID for VPIM Messages:
----------------------------------
Waiting for the editor to make update based on received comments. Also need to
determine the charset and make it an unstructured field. A question was raised
as to whether ther were more related fields to store in the RFC822 header. Greg
Vaudreuil has a list of other things he would like stored, but that list has not
been discussed.
Other:
------
John Neystadt presented his idea for the Smart Notification & Alarm Protocol
(SNAP). It is defined to enable messaging servers to notify the outside world
about mailbox events. It will have an XML- or MIME-based schema for required
content fields, and it will define one or more bindings to transports (SMTP,
HTTP, SIP, etc.). The question was raised as to what are the differences
between SNAP & ENP (I think ENP was the term used), but I didn't catch the
answer. The group decided that SNAP is worth investigating, and John will
develop a draft for the list.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Apr 09 2001 - 18:53:54 IDT