IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Notifications] Use cases

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Tue, 31 July 2007 13:28 UTC

Return-path: <notifications-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IFrmJ-0000gi-7S; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:28:47 -0400
Received: from notifications by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IFrmH-0000gb-RJ for notifications-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:28:45 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IFrmH-0000gT-Gb for notifications@ietf.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:28:45 -0400
Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.195]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IFrmH-0001cG-6Y for notifications@ietf.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:28:45 -0400
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1185888523!19214552!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.11; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53]
Received: (qmail 17028 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2007 13:28:44 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-12.tower-121.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 Jul 2007 13:28:44 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6VDShhe032014 for <notifications@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:28:43 -0400
Received: from mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com (mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com [144.155.224.139]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6VDSWQc031912 for <notifications@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:28:36 -0400
Received: from sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6VDSVsi025449 for <notifications@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:28:31 -0400
Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6VDSIlM025159 for <notifications@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:28:26 -0400
Received: from [135.210.128.177] (unknown[135.210.128.177](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20070731132817gw10010gnqe> (Authid: tony); Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:28:18 +0000
Message-ID: <46AF3932.5030505@att.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:29:22 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: notifications@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Notifications] Use cases
References: <A5E9CBACB726CB4BAA3DAFF0925C188F129A76@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
In-Reply-To: <A5E9CBACB726CB4BAA3DAFF0925C188F129A76@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
X-BeenThere: notifications@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Notifications interest group discussion list <notifications.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/notifications>, <mailto:notifications-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/notifications>
List-Post: <mailto:notifications@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notifications-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/notifications>, <mailto:notifications-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: notifications-bounces@ietf.org

As Randy reminded me at the meeting :-), after we get a bunch of
potential use cases, each of them needs to be passed through a filter of
"should this be better done by a good sieve implementation that includes
the notification extension".

But brainstorm first and keep the ideas flowing, *before* running them
through the filter.

	Tony Hansen
	tony@att.com

Eric Burger wrote:
> First scenario: is that not what sieve does today?
> 
> Second scenario: once you assume a long-lived TCP connection, the
> IMAP connection is free. I would also offer the IMAP NOTIFY message
> can be an order of magnitude smaller than a fully-routed SIP message,
> which would save bandwidth.


_______________________________________________
Notifications mailing list
Notifications@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/notifications

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email