[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Suggested RTT text (was RE: [Simple] RE: [Sipping] RE: text/T140 andaudio/t140)
After 420 pages of "discussion", may I humbly propose the following text for
the MSRP document:
User interfaces and user communities for instant messaging and real-time
text telephony are extremely similar. MSRP is not an ideal protocol for the
negotiation and transport of real-time text. However, devices that
implement MRSP SHOULD implement real-time text telephony, using standard SIP
(RFC3261) and text/t140 (RFC2793bis) mechanisms.
Rationale:
1. It looks like consensus to putting RTP under MSRP is far, far, away,
assuming it even makes sense, which it probably doesn't.
2. A whole bunch (80%?) of the code for an IM device would be shared with a
RTT device - character input, character display, Internet connectivity, SIP
stack, etc.
3. We have a charter obligation to make protocols amenable to building
devices that are accessible to everyone.
This is an opportunity to meet the objections to trying to shoehorn RTT into
MSRP (#1) with our Charter obligations (#3) without an undue burden on the
implementer (#2).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage at lucent.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 5:54 AM
> To: simple at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Simple] RE: [Sipping] RE: text/T140 andaudio/t140
> was:[avt]C omments/questions on draft-ietf-av
>
>
> Given the length of time this discussion has been going on,
> and the number of messages exchanged, is it not about time we
> reached some conclusions. These lists are to advance the
> deliverables in the working groups concerned, so how do any
> conclusions affect those deliverables.
>
> SIMPLE has a charter to produce instant messaging protocols.
> I do not see in all the discussion of the advantages of
> instant messaging versus real-time text removing that charter
> item. Therefore I suggest we STOP that discussion, or the
> proponents move it elsewhere.
>
> SIMPLE does not have a charter item to produce real-time text
> protocols. There is already an existing capability in IETF
> for real-time text protocols. It is not really up to SIMPLE
> to discuss whether that works well or not, as it was not
> developed under SIMPLEs charter.
>
> How terminals mix and match applications is not something
> that IETF traditionally deals with. Therefore I would suggest
> that any requirements that state RTT and IM must be
> implemented in the same terminal are out of scope of IETF.
> They should certainly be in some device specification rather
> than in the MSRP specification which SIMPLE is specifically
> delivering.
>
> I guess the questions as affecting MSRP really fall down to these:
>
> - Are there capabilities in MSRP that would lead to a
> valid RTT protocol that works better than the existing IETF
> solution, in addition to it fulfilling the requirements to
> provide an IM protocol. From the exchange of messages I have
> seem so far, it seems to me that the conclusion should be NO.
>
> - In order to deal with a body of users that have IM, and
> prefer to use IM, and a body of users that have RTT, and
> prefer to use RTT, is there a need to be able to interwork
> the two protocols at some intermediate point, and not just
> within the terminal by supporting both protocols under a
> common user interface? I see that as an element of the
> discussion just raised by Paul. Does such interworking, if
> required, have any impact on the contents of MSRP?
>
> regards
>
> Keith
>
> Keith Drage
> Lucent Technologies
> drage at lucent.com
> tel: +44 1793 776249
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Arnoud van Wijk [mailto:a.vwijk at viataal.nl]
> > Sent: 04 July 2004 10:43
> > To: hisham.khartabil at nokia.com; paulej at packetizer.com;
> > pkyzivat at cisco.com; Guido.Gybels at rnid.org.uk
> > Cc: fluffy at cisco.com; simple at ietf.org; gv at trace.wisc.edu;
> > toip at snowshore.com; gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se; smundra at telogy.com
> > Subject: RE: [Simple] RE: [Sipping] RE: text/T140 andaudio/t140
> > was:[avt]Comments/questions on draft-ietf-av
> >
> >
> > Never say never.
> > Have you tried interactive text/real-time text?
> > Did you?
> >
> > First try it and THEN you can say if you like it or not.
> >
> > If you want to determine how useful it is. Test it.
> > Use it
> > Try it
> > Compare it with IM.
> > See the differences between IM and RTT/Interactive text.
> > See that both text communication methods have their advantages and
> > disadvantages.
> > And use both for the best situations.
> >
> > And if you still don't want to use RTT/Interactive
> > text..fine..I just hope
> > that when I call you, that you can still receive my call.
> > Just use it only
> > when the other person uses Interactive text/RTT.
> > Even if it is then 3-4 times per year.
> >
> > Can you with IM:
> > * directly call the other?
> > * forward the call?
> > * put on hold?
> > * have the call go to multiple terminals?
> > * not being logged on a buddy list server, where you may get
> > flooded by 20
> > users at the same time saying hi! And such?
> > * being able to leave a message on an answering machine?
> > * using a service that allows a ring notifivation as soon the
> > other user is
> > ready with his/her other phonecall? (ring back on busy).
> >
> > There are more.. but I am unfamiliar with voice calls. I am
> > just enjoying my
> > freedom of communications beyond the IM limitations.
> >
> > And I enjoy using IM also..even though I am forced to use
> > Trillian, since
> > there is NO one universal standard for IM right now!
> >
> > Interactive text is!
> >
> > Greetz
> >
> > Arnoud
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> Simple at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple