- From: Glenn Parsons <gparsons@nortelnetworks.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:17:36 -0400
- To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Patrik Fältström <paf@swip.net>
- Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, vpim-l@ema.org
Folks, Attached is the summary of the VPIM BOF meetings held July 12 & 13, 1999 at IETF 45. The minutes will be available shortly for your comments. Cheers, Glenn. ---------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Parsons Internet Application Standards Nortel Networks Phone: +1-613-763-7582 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA G3fax: +1-613-763-4461 Email: Glenn.Parsons@NortelNetworks.com VPIM (Voice Profile for Internet Mail) BOF ========================================== The proposed charter that describes the VPIM v2 and VPIM v3 work was discussed. Several minor changes were suggested -- notably, it was clarified that the primary goal of VPIM v3 was to support desktop clients and that the work of the Internet Fax group be included. The charter was agreed and will be sent to the list for final comments before forwarding to the ADs. The VPIM web site and mailing list were problematic during the meeting and will be fixed. The VPIM v2 revision was reviewed and it was noted that the posted draft was missing the last few pages -- a complete copy will be posted. The goal is to advance VPIM v2 to Draft Standard. To achieve this, the references must be evaluated and an interop report created based on the testing. Most proposed changes were non-controversial, however it was pointed out that if the vCard was changed to inline (ie, a protocol change) VPIM v2 would have to recycle at Proposed. The VPIM v3 discussion quickly bogged down into a codec debate -- the room disagreed with the mandatory 6 or more codecs. After much discussion, it was proposed that for backwards compatibility the codec must be G.726 and for desktop compatibility it must be MS-GSM. It was proposed to split VPIM v3 into mandatory desktop compatibility and optional backwards compatibility. The primary content semantic for unified messaging proposed for multipart/voice-message & multipart/fax-message was again rejected in favour of a more general approach. This might use multipart/related with a voice or fax parameter along with partial MDNs or DSNs. The IMAP Voice requirements were discussed and several were discounted as being not IMAP issues (message length) or already solved (streaming). The binary requirement was moved to the IMAPext BOF.
Received on Thursday, 15 July 1999 19:22:22 UTC