W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > September 2000

Re: Mobile Multimedia Messaging Service

From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:21:54 -0400
Message-ID: <39C3C852.E83B2A76@thinkingcat.com>
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
CC: vint cerf <vcerf@MCI.NET>, "James P. Salsman" <bovik@best.com>, Jim.Mathis@Motorola.com, ned.freed@innosoft.com, discuss@apps.ietf.org, ietf-mmms@imc.org, ietf@ietf.org
Howdy,

Yes, RESCAP should be doing this.  (Too many people with full
plates, not enough people poking -- so poke ;-)

Leslie.

Patrik Fältström wrote:
> 
> At 08.12 -0400 00-09-16, vint cerf wrote:
> >would it be useful, in the context of establishing peer-to-peer communications
> >(or even client/server communications) with limited-function mobile devices,
> >to use SIP as a framework for negotiating the parameters that should guide the
> >nature of the exchange?
> 
> Maybe. The rescap wg is looking into "capabilies" in a different way
> (I presume).
> 
> >I'm thinking, for instance, of a web server that may
> >usefully discover the functional limits of a mobile before it starts to send
> >content to that device. The mobile uses SIP to report to the server that it
> >has X amount of memory, Y amount of display area, color or not, average
> >data rate it can send or receive, and so on. This information would be used
> >by the server to configure what it sends to be compatible with the receiving
> >unit.
> >
> >perhaps this is an idea that is already being pursued in an IETF
> >working group?
> 
> I think "discovery" of capabilities is an interesting discussion, and
> of course it should be dealt with aswell. Some of this information
> can be handled by just looking att the tcp control block :-)
> 
> Now, I would like, to be honest, this wg to more look at what
> stupid(?) design flaws have been made in the existing protocols given
> certain capabilities than the actual discovery process. IMAP in
> disconnected mode is a good idea, maybe, but might be too chatty.
> I.e. long rtt makes chatty protocols like IMAP and SMTP (just as some
> examples) quite boring. Can something be done about that (batch
> smtp?).
> 
> Say we have a very fat pipe between earth and the moon (which current
> tcp should be able to handle). Should we run IMAP over that link
> which have quite some RTT?
> 
> What happens if we have only a 2.4k inmarsat sattelite phone with
> 900ms rtt, can we still do useful stuff with normal applications
> given ppp (the solution is not to change ppp in this discussion)?
> 
>    paf

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality with a delicate splash of the imaginary... 
    ... or was that the other way around?"
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 16 September 2000 16:05:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:11:27 GMT