RE: [Simple] Advanced IM Reqs: Delivery status reporting

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:vkg@lucent.com]
> Sent: 25.February.2004 00:18
> To: Khartabil Hisham (Nokia-TP-MSW/Helsinki)
> Cc: jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com; cboulton@ubiquity.net; simple@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Simple] Advanced IM Reqs: Delivery status reporting
> 
> 
> 
> hisham.khartabil@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > I see use cases for both: report-on-failure and report-on-delivery. 
> 
> Problem with affirmitive delivery notification is that it
> may cause notification storms when an IM is sent to a large
> list.  Not all users will remember to turn delivery
> notification _off_ when sending the IM to a large audience.
> 
> > Some people rely on the latter to learn when a recipient actually 
> > received (not necessarily read) the IM.  
> 
> I can't argue with that, to be sure; but is that the norm?
> 
> It appears that there are two cases to consider: a) where
> the IM system is tied to a presence system, and b) where
> it is not.  In (a), a sender can be reasonably sure when
> he sends the message that the recipient got it.  A
> confirmation for each message would simply be too awkward,
> given the volume of IMs that can be potentially exchanged.
> (b) is more akin to email; the sender sends a message
> not expecting an immediate response.  If the undelying
> network fails to deliver the message, it should let the
> sender know.  Otherwise, no further communications are
> needed.
> 
> > An natural extension to that is to learn when the IM was actually 
> > read.
> 
> I can see this as providing a utility in case (b) above.
> 
> > BTW, I don't see IM and SMTP as a fair comparison. 
> 
> For store-and-forward IM, I think SMTP is a good comparison.
> For real time interactive IM, I agree, it is not.
> 
> > IM and SMS is a better comparison.
> 
> I think we can -- and must -- do better than SMS.  AFAIK,
> if a SMS message is not delivered, the sender is not
> notified (correct me if I am wrong).  Once a sender sends
> a SMS, they generally assume that it will be delivered.
> We can do one better than SMS by notifying the sender if
> the IM could NOT be delivered.  If it is delivered (which
> will be a majority of the case), no notification needed.

SMS has delivery reports. If we want to do better, then we need allow both delivery report and failure report.

To answer your concern about the notification storm, there is some work going on right now in sipping to handle this situation. See the links below.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-sipping-transac-package-00.txt

/Hisham

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> - vijay
> -- 
> Vijay K. Gurbani  vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
> Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services
> Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
> Naperville, Illinois 60566     Voice: +1 630 224 0216
> 

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple