[lemonade] Server To Server notification protocol requirements
Decktor Gev <Gev_Decktor@icomverse.com> Tue, 20 January 2004 17:06 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12800 for <lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:06:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AizK2-0001mG-Ue for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:05:54 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0KH5oXN006831 for lemonade-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:05:50 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AizK2-0001m6-Q8 for lemonade-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:05:50 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12783 for <lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:05:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AizK1-0006XR-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:05:49 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AizJ6-0006SW-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:04:54 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AizIL-0006NN-00 for lemonade-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:04:05 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AizIH-0001ex-4w; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:04:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AizHh-0001cV-OE for lemonade@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:03:29 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12618 for <lemonade@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:03:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AizHg-0006KC-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:03:24 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AizGg-0006Fp-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:02:23 -0500
Received: from il-tlv-firewall-main.icomverse.com ([192.118.48.248] helo=il-tlv-smtpout1.icomverse.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AizFh-0006Af-00 for lemonade@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:01:22 -0500
Received: from il-tlv-mbdg2.comverse.com (il-tlv-mbdg2.comverse.com [10.115.244.42]) by il-tlv-smtpout1.icomverse.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0KH0gM09883; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:00:45 +0200
Received: by il-tlv-mbdg2.comverse.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <Z78K2A2Y>; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:00:54 +0200
Message-ID: <32B823C1CD4FD5119C0D0002A560F78E0D010DE1@ismail3.comverse.com>
From: Decktor Gev <Gev_Decktor@icomverse.com>
To: 'Lisa Dusseault' <lisa@xythos.com>, 'Joe Hildebrand' <jhildebrand@jabber.com>
Cc: "'lemonade@ietf.org'" <lemonade@ietf.org>
Subject: [lemonade] Server To Server notification protocol requirements
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:00:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3DF76.F605BED4"
Sender: lemonade-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: lemonade-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade>, <mailto:lemonade-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments <lemonade.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:lemonade@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lemonade-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade>, <mailto:lemonade-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60
Hi all, basically the points raised in the 58th IETF in the matter of server to server notification protocol requirements, could be divided into 2 main categories: 1. missing/inaccurate requirements details in the document as is 2. why not use XMPP as the answer for these requirements. XMPP's scope is IM, meaning two end point sending each other "small, simple messages that are delivered immediately to online users"(RFC2779). On the other hand Server to Server Messaging Notification (S2SMN), refers to a entity, which defines in an offline manner when and how it would like to be notified upon mailbox events. The entities, which have triggered the event aren't taking an active part in this scenario. This means that the notification event initiator (e.g. voice mail server) will send event about mailbox status change and the notification service will be responsible for deciding what to do with that information, how and when (i.e. the subscriber's notification preferences). In the IM world, the voice mail server from the previous example, would have to "know" the subscriber's notification preferences. As a result the notification service's functionality would diminish to being a gateway to non XMPP networks. This implies that any server which wishes to participate in this scenario, would have to "know" the subscriber's notification preferences as well AND there won't be a single notification logics entity (which would result different notification "look And Feel" for each message store (email messages Vs. Voice messages)) S2SMN is the problem described in part 6.3 of the lemonade goals draft(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lemonade-goals-01.txt), not IM (although there may be many similarities). To sum up, XMPP would be regarded as a valid option for implementing the server to server notification protocol, yet this decision should be taken after agreeing on the requirements. These requirements should not be derived from existing protocols, but rather from the needed functionality as described in the charter. Regarding the feedbacks in the LEMONADE meeting itself, I intend to adapt the draft to answer to all of them. A new edition of the draft would be sent in the next week. Please, share you thoughts with me Thanx, Gev.