Subject: [Simple] <no subject>

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:48:04 -0800

Justin brought up an interesting uses case - I remember discussing this
before but I forget the resolution. I think Orit might have pointed it out
before. 

Say we have a xcon style text conference and the focus is M and A, B, and C
have an MSRP connection to M. Now when A and B send to M, M will send the
text to C and the SIP session will be to M and in many ways it will look
like it came from M. However, we need a way for the message to indicate a
hint that M believes it was originally from A (or B as the case may be).

Do folks remember if we resolved this? Saying all messages have to be CPIM
seems like overkill to me for simple text conferencing.

You could have this same case in a simpler form where B is has a direction
session with A and C and B is doing the "mixing" of the text.

Thoughts, 

Cullen

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

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:40:10 -0600

>seems like overkill to me for simple text conferencing.
I thought that was it.

Is CPIM perceived to be that heavy? It seems excruciatingly 
straightforward to implement to me.

/a

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:41:07 -0600

We had lots of gnashing of teeth on this one. The original intent was 
to use message/cpim wrappers when you need to make an attribution to an 
identity other than the one associated with M.

A number of people argued on either side, and we ended up where we 
started, with the additional caveat of punting on things like chained 
identities (i.e. what if B was _also_ a focus...)

The most recent draft had some clarifying text on this.

---

From: "Justin Uberti" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:53:15 -0500

I quickly read RFC 3862 to come up to speed on message/cpim. Which 
header lines are mandatory to implement? When used with MSRP, the From 
header seems to be the only thing needed to solve the original problem I 
raised.

Thanks,
--justin

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:20:42 -0500

> header seems to be the only thing needed to solve the original problem I 

As I recall, they are all mandatory to *implement*. But they aren't all 
mandatory to *use*. And of course "implementing" the ones you don't use 
isn't so hard.

	Paul