Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-simple-imdn (Instant Message Disposition Notification) to Proposed Standard

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:17:48 +0100

The IESG wrote:

> 'Instant Message Disposition Notification '
> <draft-ietf-simple-imdn-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard

| It is strongly RECOMMENDED that the IM Recipient obtain
| the user's consent before sending an IMDN.  Circumstances
| where the IM Recipient does not ask for the user's consent
| include IM systems that, for regulatory reasons, are
| required to issue an IMDN, such as in the health care
| field or financial community.

IMO nothing less than a MUST is acceptable, no matter what
RFC 3798 says.  Assuming that anybody allows MDNs without
explicit permission, I don't.

| Electronic Mail [10] deals with this situation with Message
| Delivery Notifications [11].  After the recipient views the
| message, her mail user agent generates a Message Delivery
| Notification, or MDN. 

Dubious.  E-mail *offers* this (in RFC 3798), but MUAs doing
it without explicit permission would be considered harmful.

| unique with at least 32 bits of randomness

If it's random it isn't necessarily unique, or I miss a clue.

| Message-ID = "Message-ID" ": " Token

What's a <Token> ?  The 34jk324j example isn't supposed to be
"worldwide unique forever" as in all "Message-ID" definitions
since 1994, or is it ?  Maybe the draft should say "Token"
where it says "Message-ID", and of course define the <Token>. 

Giving up for now,

 Frank

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