[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Pre-Last Call: VPIM v2 (Voice Profile for Internet Mail - version2)
> Many of you are probably already aware of the Voice Profile for
> Internet Mail (VPIM) specification that was issued as Experimental
> RFC 1911 earlier this year. The Electronic Messaging Association (EMA),
> with input from both the voice messaging and email industries, has
> recently completed a final version of VPIM (dubbed version 2) that is
> available as an Internet Draft <draft-ema-vpim-03.txt> and is attached
> to this message. We have requested that the IETF Applications Area
> approve this specification as a Proposed Standard.
While I support this document and the profile it describes, there are at least
four procedural issues that I believe need to be resolved:
(1) The document calls for the use of application/directory objects. As far
as I know application/directory hasn't yet been approved as a
proposed standard, making this usage problematic.
I fully expect application/directory to move onto the standards track
in due course, so this problem will disappear on its own in the future.
The issue then becomes one of timing -- is the reference to vCard
formats worth holding up this document? I suspect that it is, but it is
something to be considered.
(2) The document calls for the use of the CHUNKING and BINARYMIME
SMTP extensions. These are both experimental protocols, and I know of
nothing in the works to move them onto the standards track. As such,
this usage is also problematic and is likely to remain so for some time.
(3) This document doesn't just profile existing services, it defines some
new ones, e.g. the content-duration header field. I would much rather
see the definition of any new services in a document separate from the
(4) I question the appropriateness of this document becoming a proposed
standard. Modulo the definition of new services (which I think belong in
a separate document anyway) it isn't a protocol definition, it is a
profiling of several extant procotols defined elsewhere. The result
feels a lot more like either a BCP or AS to me.