Greg (gregv@lucent.com)
Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:30:56 -0600
I have been revising the Delivery Status Notification drafts in preparation
for Draft Standard. While re-reading the drafts, it ocures to me that an
additional message context is delivery status notification. A DSN has all
the listed properties of a context, that is, 1) it may be presented with a
specialized viewer (interprets machine parsable part in user language and
appropriate media) 2) It may be presented in special order in the inbox, 3)
it may have a special icon in the inbox list, and 4) It may be processed by
rule differently than other messages.
My initial thought was that DSN is orthogonal to context, that is, a message
may be both a failure and a pager message, but upon further reflection, I
believe a failure is a context in and of itself, sent in response to a
message of any context, and treated primarily as a failure, not as a message
in the original context. The original context should be preserved as part
of the included message or RFC822-headers for use in displaying the failed
message.
I am unsure whether DSN and MDN are two different contexts. They are both
notifications, but the "viewer" may be substantially different. The MDN and
positive DSN may be silently collated by the UA with a message in the outbox
and a flag set for future reference and not even be presented to the user,
while a negative DSN presumably is a more urgent matter.....unless it is
from misconfigured list managment software :-)
Thoughts?
Greg V.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:21 PM
To: Glenn Parsons; 'IETF VPIM List'
Cc: 'Ned Freed'; 'paf@cisco.com'; 'John W. Noerenberg'
Subject: RE: [VPIM] WG Last Call on Message Context & Critical Content
I have re-reviewed the latest drafts and have objections. This has been one
of the most inspired standards efforts I have had the pleasure of
participating in. Each round of revision resulted in a smaller, more
concise, more useful standard. Simply amazing given the number of widely
divergent concepts and agenda's brought to the table.
A single textual comment: given my druthers, I'd rather be recognized in the
-hint draft for my contribution to identifying approriate initial message
context's rather than for the depth and breadth of my hat.
Greg V.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Parsons [mailto:gparsons@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:37 PM
To: 'IETF VPIM List'
Cc: 'Ned Freed'; 'paf@cisco.com'; 'John W. Noerenberg'
Subject: [VPIM] WG Last Call on Message Context & Critical Content
Folks,
This is a two week Working Group last call notice for the Message Context &
Critical Content drafts to end on June 18th. These drafts are to go to
Draft Standard RFC status. They are key components of the Internet Voice
Mail (IVM) profile.
Message Context (was Content Hint) provides information about the context of
a message (e.g., it was sent as a voice message) and Critical Content
describes a mechanism to tag body parts as critical for delivery (e.g., an
attachment is not, but the main audio is critical in a voice message).
These drafts have changed significantly since their inception, and the
recent revisions reflect several decisions made based on comments outlined
by Eric at IETF 50
It has been only a year since the first drafts appeared, but given the
numerous draft iterations to reach consensus, I would encourage you to
review these latest drafts and provide any comments to the list.
The drafts are in the Internet repositories and also on the VPIM website:
http://www.ema.org/vpim/specs/draft-ietf-vpim-cc-04.txt
<http://www.ema.org/vpim/specs/draft-ietf-vpim-cc-04.txt>
http://www.ema.org/vpim/specs/draft-ietf-vpim-hint-06.txt
<http://www.ema.org/vpim/specs/draft-ietf-vpim-hint-06.txt>
Thanks in advance for your help in reviewing these drafts.
Cheers,
Glenn Parsons
VPIM WG co-chair
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Jun 12 2001 - 18:31:24 IDT