Subject: [lemonade] Notifications for multiple devices per user

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:54:29 +0100

In my private discussion with Zoltan he raised a question about IMAP 
server ability to store notification information (i.e. where the 
notification is to be sent) for multiple devices per user. Is this the 
requirement the WG wants to consider when thinking about notifications?

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

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 10:36:19 +0200

Alexey Melnikov writes:
> notification is to be sent) for multiple devices per user. Is this 
> the requirement the WG wants to consider when thinking about 
> notifications?

Isn't this a given?

Noone stops using the desktop/laptop just because he gets a shiny new 
Nokia 770, so that's two devices already. Of couse some people might 
argue that a desktop/laptop has no need for notifications, but I 
wouldn't say so. People are too fond of little RAM-sucking desktop 
gadgets.

Arnt

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:40:22 -0700

There's an alternative architecture for the same use case, and that's  
to let the notification server (SIP or XMPP, in particular) do  
fanout.  Then the IMAP server simply sends the notification to the  
user's notification address (plus some application field if  
specified) and the user decides which devices subscribe to those  
notifications.

I could be wrong but I think some of those kinds of servers can  
gateway to SMS so that would even work in.

lisa

On Jun 7, 2006, at 5:54 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> In my private discussion with Zoltan he raised a question about  
> IMAP server ability to store notification information (i.e. where  
> the notification is to be sent) for multiple devices per user. Is  
> this the requirement the WG wants to consider when thinking about  
> notifications?
>
>

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:59:15 -0700

At 4:40 PM -0700 6/9/06, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>  There's an alternative architecture for the same use case, and 
> that's to let the notification server (SIP or XMPP, in particular) 
> do fanout.  Then the IMAP server simply sends the notification to 
> the user's notification address (plus some application field if 

Depending on the device capability, it is conceivable that the user 
might want different criteria.  So the more capable the device, the 
more state changes and new messages it is aware of, but the more 
limited devices would only know about the most urgent messages.

I had been thinking that this would be handled by Sieve, with various 
rules sending notifications to different devices.  This would imply 
that the rules would need to be updated as devices change.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Chance that an American cannot name a single right protected by the
First Amendment: 1 in 3.                           (Harper's Index)

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:48:19 +0100

>> the requirement the WG wants to consider when thinking about 

I didn't think that would be the common case. Other opinions?

The reason why this is important, is because this requirement would 
dictate how mailbox annotations related to notifications are structured 
(named).

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:15:32 -0700

On Jun 9, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:

> I had been thinking that this would be handled by Sieve, with  
> various rules sending notifications to different devices.  This  
> would imply that the rules would need to be updated as devices change.

Right.  That's difficult, particularly since various devices might  
not have the same understanding of Sieve rules and extensions.  It's  
easier for the device to simply to subscribe, or no, to some address  
to which notifications are sent (not nonstop but whenever there's a  
receiver) according to a previously configured script or rule.

Lisa

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:11:00 -0700

At 10:15 AM -0700 6/15/06, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>>> that's to let the notification server (SIP or XMPP, in 
>>> particular) do fanout.  Then the IMAP server simply sends the 
>>> notification to the user's notification address (plus some 
>>> application field if specified) and the user decides which 
>>> devices subscribe to those notifications.

>  It's easier for the device to simply to subscribe, or no, to some 
> address to which notifications are sent (not nonstop but whenever 
> there's a receiver) according to a previously configured script or 
> rule.

I apologize if this was covered in a draft that I missed, but I'd 
like to understand this better.

So Sieve would be used to test messages, and generate notification 
events as appropriate.  If you had, say, progressively more 
restrictive filter criteria, the Sieve script would contain tests for 
each set.

The Sieve script could be written such that it did the most 
restrictive (fewest notifications) tests first, in the equivalent of 
a deep IF-THEN-ELSEIF, and therefore at most one notification would 
be generated per message.  Or, the Sieve script could be written such 
that it did all tests against all messages, and therefore might 
generate multiple notifications per message.  Notifications generated 
by the Sieve script would be have an identifier that looked like an 
IM address, and be published to something that looked like an IM 
server.  In the case of progressively more restrictive filter 
criteria, each would have its own address.  For example, 
[email-masked]', 
[email-masked]', etc.

Devices would subscribe to the notifications using the identifier.

How does the Sieve script get created and updated?  Which device does 
this, and how much knowledge does it need about the others?

How is the Sieve script or engine configured to send notifications to 
the addresses?

How do devices learn which notification identifier they need to subscribe to?

Note that I think these questions apply generally to any out of band 
notification mechanism.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
In America, anyone can become president.  That's one of the
risks you take.                           --Adlai Stevenson

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:44:05 +0300

Good points.
I am not sure myself that SIEVE is the best way to go here.
SIEVE might be good enough to identify which events needs to be notified, however I do not think that the SIEVE scripts should include information about the bearer type or addresses (where to send the notification) - otherwise each client needs to update the SIEVE script according to its need, and it will introduce additional issues.

Best regards: Zoltán Ördögh
E-mail: zoltan dot ordogh at nokia dot com
Phone: +358 50 386 0566

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Randall Gellens [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 17 June, 2006 02:11
To: Lisa Dusseault
Cc: Lemonade WG; Alexey Melnikov
Subject: Re: [lemonade] Notifications for multiple devices per user

At 10:15 AM -0700 6/15/06, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>>> application field if specified) and the user decides which devices 
>>> subscribe to those notifications.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:14:48 +0100

>SIEVE might be good enough to identify which events needs to be notified, however I do not think that the SIEVE scripts should include information about the bearer type or addresses (where to send t…
Sieve script can reference values stored in mailbox annotations.
This would allow the Sieve script to stay pretty much static, while the 
client can modify where notifications go by changing per mailbox 
annotations.
(Draft describing Sieve extension for this is on my todo list)