Andrew Hobson (andrew.hobson@cbeyond.net)
23 Oct 2001 08:54:10 -0400
"Glenn Parsons" <gparsons@nortelnetworks.com> writes:
> This spec is IVM (draft-ietf-vpim-ivm-02.txt) and uses the new
> concepts of critical content, message context, and a new definition
> of WAV to define generic UM.
Thank you for the reference.
> In some cases though, we have determined that enhanced UM features
> are better served by extensions to IMAP (draft-ema-vpim-cb-02.txt).
I'm not seeing any extensions to IMAP in that draft. Could you
clarify? Or are you referring to draft-nerenberg-imap-binary-00.txt?
> In any case, my point is that we have considered these issues, have
> proposed solutions and are in the midst of last calling the
> documents. I would suggest that you take a look at some of the past
> meeting minutes for some history, and then review the existing
> drafts and provide some comments.
I took a look at the meeting minutes from the last several meetings.
The movement towards more intelligent UAs is the right one, IMHO.
However, I think we need something that works now.
We are investigating deploying a Unified Messaging product in the near
term, and we really would like our customers to be able to forward a
voice mail with their MUA and have it recognized as a voice mail, even
if only by our own customers. We aren't comfortable asking our
customers to change their MUA.
I am discussing this problem with a couple of UM vendors. If we can
come up with a workable solution, then it will be deployed. I have to
believe that this same issue is coming up across the industry. We
can't afford to wait until the MUAs have explict support for VPIM/IVM.
As I see it, either each UM vendor will have their own workaround for
this issue, or the communitity can draft a standard and ask our UM
vendors to implement it. I think it's in the interest of the entire
community to come up with a solution for the right now.
Drew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Oct 23 2001 - 14:54:16 IST