1 / 6

SIMPLE Advanced IM Requirements draft-ietf-simple-messaging- requirements-00

This document outlines the revised requirements for the Session Initiation Protocol for Instant Messaging (SIMPLE), building on previous drafts. It consolidates key feedback from discussions at IETF meetings, emphasizing elements like IM Disposition Notifications, message composition indications, and addressing limitations of current specifications. The requirements aim to enhance multiparty messaging capabilities and address open issues, such as maximum message size specifications and the need for delivery confirmation reports. The goal is to guide future work for IETF and related working groups.

mave
Download Presentation

SIMPLE Advanced IM Requirements draft-ietf-simple-messaging- requirements-00

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SIMPLE Advanced IM Requirementsdraft-ietf-simple-messaging- requirements-00 Markus Isomäki IETF 66, July 11, 2006

  2. Background and Purpose • The current draft is a revision of draft-rosenberg-simple-messaging-requirements-01, from February 2004 • That draft drew requirements e.g. from draft-niemi-simple-im-wireless-reqs-02, which tried to capture 3GPP/OMA related IM requirements at the time • The revision was done based on discussion within an ad hoc design team established at IETF 65 • All requirements that SIMPLE (or other related WGs) already addresses or should work upon were kept. All others were removed. • In some areas existing specifications (RFCs or matured drafts) already cover what is needed • In some areas more work is needed if we want to meet the requirements

  3. Scope of the Requirements • IM Disposition Notifications • draft-ietf-simple-imdn tries to address these • Is-Composing • RFC 3994 (Indication of Message Composition of Instant Messaging) already addresses these • Content Capabilities (==indication of the maximum message size) • MSRP meets the requirement, SIP MESSAGE currently not • Page-Mode Groups (==addressing SIP MESSAGE to a list of recipients) • draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services and draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message already address these • To, Cc, Bcc “roles” as in draft-ietf-sipping-capacity-attribute not included in these reqs • Multiparty MSRP related requirements (including “private” messaging, nicknames) currently missing • Anything else SIMPLE should be working on related to IM?

  4. Specific Open Issues Related to IMDN • IMDN and intermediaries • IMDN in session-mode messaging • REQ-DISNOT-11: When an IM is sent to an intermediary that will relay it to a group of recipients, it MUST be possible for the sender to ask that the intermediary will generate summary reports based on reports it receives from each final recipient. [OPEN ISSUE: Is this needed?] • REQ-DISNOT-12: Any error condition reported by the notification MUST be able to contain a textual description of the error meant for human consumption [OPEN ISSUE: How about internationalization?] • REQ-DISNOT-13: If an IM is being relayed through a gateway, for example, to SMS, the delivery report SHOULD be able to indicate such a condition [OPEN ISSUE: Is this needed?] • REQ-COMP-14: It must be possible to receive delivery confirmation reports for is-composing indicators [OPEN ISSUE: This is related to the question on whether disposition notifications will be supported for session-mode messaging.]

  5. Open Issue Related to SIP MESSAGE Max-size Indication • In page mode messaging, a 413 response can be sent if a MESSAGE request is too large. However, there is no way to indicate what the largest allowed size is. • REQ-CONTENT-2: A 413 response MUST be capable of indicating the maximum allowed message size. [OPEN ISSUE: Is this needed?]

  6. Next Steps • Are we covering all the areas where SIMPLE should work on related to IM capabilities? • Multiparty MSRP? • Should we specifically ask input e.g. from OMA? • What are they expecting IETF to deliver to them? • Resolve the IMDN related open issues in order to get draft-ietf-simple-imdn on the correct track • Resolve the SIP MESSAGE maximum size issue

More Related