IPP> RE: NOT - mailto Delivery Method and SMS [I changed the Subject o f this thread]

IPP> RE: NOT - mailto Delivery Method and SMS [I changed the Subject o f this thread]

IPP> RE: NOT - mailto Delivery Method and SMS [I changed the Subject o f this thread]

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Wed Jul 12 03:18:48 EDT 2000


Anthony,

Please look at the latest mailto delivery method.  See the examples.  The
Subject line has most of the message (and my comment was that it could
contain the missing piece of information, namely, the name of the printer by
tacking:

   on printer xxx

to the end of the subject line.

The body could be a repeat of the Subject line.  But an interesting issue,
is why both having a body at all?  If we didn't have a body, then the
current mailto scheme would also work for SMS.  

ISSUE: Why not eliminate the message body from the mailto Delivery Method so
it could be used as is for SMS?

Thanks,
Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 09:39
To: 'Anthony.Porter at xeikon.com'; McDonald, Ira;
cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com; ipp at pwg.org; sasaki at jci.co.jp
Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery method
by July 7


Hi Anthony,

Thanks for all that detailed info.  I agree that simply
specifying a general short message service behavior for
IPP is useful.  But for IETF standardization of well-known
delivery methods (for IPP notifications) we need an I-D
and ultimately an RFC.

Cheers,
- Ira

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony.Porter at xeikon.com [mailto:Anthony.Porter at xeikon.com]
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 2:04 AM
To: imcdonald at sharplabs.com; Anthony.Porter at xeikon.com;
cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com; ipp at pwg.org; sasaki at jci.co.jp
Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery method
by July 7


> Hi Anthony,
> Have you read RFC 2805 'URLs for Telephony' (April 2000)?

Yes I did (but it is RFC 2806)  It is fine to use 2806, but in any case the
numbers for SMS are quite simple and invariably follow the recommendations
of 2806, with the exception of the tel: scheme.

I dont think that IPP need refer to SMS as such at all.  It is enough to
have a generic "short message" notification method with a URL that could be
a telephone number.  It could still be an email-address.  The difference
between this service and the email notification is that the destination is a
device that would prefer a short message rather than a long one.  It could
be a pager or an i-mode phone, or simply an email client where the user
would prefer a short message rather than a long one.  The notification would
be restricted to a subject line with no body.

i-mode phones do not have a length restriction, but the user pays per packet
of 128 bytes (which I think is around 50 Japanese characters), and the
format of the device means that a short message is easier to handle.  The
user of an i-mode phone could still elect to receive a verbose email
notification.

If the URL is a telephone number, then I think that SMS is the only common
messaging system that works internationaly without extra expense for the
sender.  There are some alternatives, but by and large they only work
nationaly and the sender can recognise them by the number.  For example the
Belgian pager system uses a special area code, so a Belgian print service
could in theory recognize a pager and treat it separately from an SMS
number, but the service is practically obsolete.

There is a protocol, SMPP,  for sending SMS messages over TCP/IP, but it is
not an IETF protocol

Anthony



More information about the Ipp mailing list