RE: Multimedia EMSD? (was Re: Mobile Multimedia Messaging Service)

• To: petri.koskelainen@xxxxxxxxx
• Subject: RE: Multimedia EMSD? (was Re: Mobile Multimedia Messaging Service)
• From: Mohsen BANAN-Public <public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 02:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
• Cc: bovik@xxxxxxxx, public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf-mmms@xxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx, interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
• In-reply-to: <25B79E9476BAD211811B0008C7894CDC03B0FB97@treis04nok>
• References: <25B79E9476BAD211811B0008C7894CDC03B0FB97@treis04nok>

>>>>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:04:10 +0300, petri.koskelainen@xxxxxxxxx said:

  petri> Hi,
  petri> We don't need yet-another mail delivery protocol by some new forum.
  petri> We have already e.g. SIP which is capable of carrying MIME messages,
  petri> including multipart
  petri> and which supports capability negotiation.


If you want to go after the Mobile set of requirements, then 
you need to deal with "Efficiency".

See "The Efficiency of EMSD" paper in The LEAP Manifesto --
http://www.leapforum.org/ -- for details.

If you think that Efficiency is not relevant in the Mobile Multimedia
Messaging Service problem space, then you don't need yet-another mail
delivery protocol.

Grep for the word "Efficient" on the title of RFC series and see what
you get.

...Mohsen.

Replies

RE: Multimedia EMSD? (was Re: Mobile Multimedia Messaging Service), petri . koskelainen

• Prev by Date: Re: Multimedia EMSD? (was Re: Mobile Multimedia Messaging Service)
• Next by Date: Re: Mobile Multimedia Messaging Service
• Previous by thread: RE: Multimedia EMSD? (was Re: Mobile Multimedia Messaging Service)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread