Re: [Simple] RE: IM delivery reports for conferencing

[Dean Willis <[e-mail]>]

I'll further note that there are some bright young lads in OMA who  
want to use IMDN as a billing mechanism. If you send an IMDN, the  
sender gets billed for sending you the message, and if you don't, the  
billing system will presume the message was lost in transit and  
presumably not bill. This would appear to make IMDN both mandatory  
and something that couldn't be driven from a UA.

I maintain IMDN is a bad idea. It gives people bad ideas.

--
Dean

On Mar 20, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Burger, Eric wrote:

> I would offer that it MUST be driven by the client - they are the only
> one that knows whether they care.  C.f. the use of notifications for
> MSRP conferencing.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Olson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 4:58 PM
> To: Hisham Khartabil
> Cc: Burger, Eric; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: IM delivery reports for conferencing
>
> Well, my opinion obviously is that we do need this capability.  
> However,
> I don't believe the sender should really be in control of this  
> facet of
> delivery notifications. In fact if you build in aggregation support  
> now
> rather than later, than you don't even need to negotiate this. (I
> propose making receiving aggregated DN support at the sender  
> mandatory)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:52 PM
> To: Sean Olson
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: IM delivery reports for conferencing
>
>
> On Mar 20, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Sean Olson wrote:
>
>> The URI attribute only works if you structure the rest of the
>> information around it.... Are you suggesting aggregation by multipart
>> MIME or creating a new top-level XML element?
>
> I have suggested neither. I doesn't matter really although the latter
> makes more sense. The question is do we need such feature? and if  
> we do,
> to allow the sender of the IM to choose which mode or reporting s/he
> wanted (aggregated or one by one)? If the answer to the first question
> is yes, then I strongly believe that the answer to the second question
> is also yes.
>
> Hisham
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:49 PM
>> To: Sean Olson
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: IM delivery reports for conferencing
>>
>>
>> On Mar 15, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Sean Olson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Looking at:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/simple/draft-khartabil-simple-im-receipts
>>> -00.tx
>>> t
>>> And: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/simple/draft-burger-simple-imdn-03.txt
>>>
>>> Neither seems to address the use case of an "exploder" or IM
>>> conferencing where a single IM may have multiple recipients. My
>>> suggestion is that the schema you choose for the notification allow
>>> multiple delivery notifications to be batched together with each
>>> entry
>>
>>> distringuished by the recipient URI.
>>
>> It does address it to an extent. That's what the "uri" attribute is
>> there for. If we want to allow aggregation of receipts before sending
>> the receipt to the IM sender, then we also need to start thinking
>> about what the sender wants and how to indicate it in the IM itself.
>>
>> Hisham
>>
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> For Draft-khartabil-simple-im-receipts-00
>>>
>>>          <status-receipt>
>>>             <message-id>34jk324j</message-id>
>>>             <recipient uri="[e-mail]">
>>>                  <type>read</type>
>>>                  <status>200</status>
>>>                  <note lang="en">The message has been read</note>
>>>             </recipient>
>>>             <recipient uri="[e-mail]">
>>>                  <type>error</type>
>>>                  <status>415</status>
>>>                  <note lang="en">The message could not be
>>> delivered</note>
>>>             </recipient>
>>>          </status-receipt>
>>>
>>> Or, for Draft-burger-simple-imdn-03
>>>
>>>         <imdn>
>>>             <original-message-id>
>>>                1542af3e8b@[e-mail]
>>>             </original-message-id>
>>>             <reporting-uas uri="im:[e-mail]">
>>>                <original-recipient-uri>
>>>                   im:[e-mail]
>>>                </original-recipient-uri>
>>>                <disposition>read</disposition>
>>>             </reporting-uas>
>>>             <reporting-uas uri="im:[e-mail]">
>>>                <original-recipient-uri>
>>>                   im:[e-mail]
>>>                </original-recipient-uri>
>>>                <disposition>read</disposition>
>>>             </reporting-uas>
>>>         </imdn>
>>>
>>> Sorry if this has been discussed before. Was there a reason this was
>>> omitted previously?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sean
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>


_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple