Re: [Simple] MSRP chat: draft-niemi-simple-chat-04.txt

[Hisham Khartabil <hisham.khartabil at telio.no>]

And one other thing about nicknames :)

This might be a matter of taste. Would a URI parameter be more 
appropriate. I.e. Instead of this

sip:nordicguy%40room34 at example.com

you have this

sip:room34 at example.com;nickname="nordicguy"

Thanks,
Hisham

On Mar 19, 2006, at 11:28 PM, Hisham Khartabil wrote:

> Speaking of nicknames. I don't understand why we need the MSRP 
> extension NICKNAME to reserve a nickname for a chatroom. One would 
> think that the nickname was reserved when the user joined the chatroom 
> using  the SIP From header field.
>
> Thanks,
> Hisham
>
> On Mar 19, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
>
> > Miguel Garcia wrote:
> >
> > > We have just submitted a new version of the MSRP CHAT draft. This 
> > > has changed substantially from earlier versions, so I wouldn't dare 
> > > to summarize the changes.
> >
> > -----
> >
> > By and large, this is far more palatable than previous versions. I'm 
> > still a little apprehensive about the fact that we will ultimately 
> > end up with more than one way to send messages to a subset of 
> > participants (either using the "To" CPIM field *or* using the 
> > conference control protocol), but I have convinced myself that these 
> > mechanisms can probably coexist with minimal pain. Time permitting, 
> > I'll put together some suggested text for your document that talks 
> > (in general terms) about how these mechanisms can interact with each 
> > other in a sane fashion.
> >
> > -----
> >
> > I *do* have some of the same reservations as Paul does about 
> > nicknames.
> >
> > As has been brought up repeatedly: nicknames are most emphatically 
> > not an IM-only issue. The representation of conference participants 
> > is an extremely generalizable problem, and I can't as easily see how 
> > to harmonize two different mechanisms.
> >
> > In other words, the nickname reservation protocol that you're 
> > defining with the NICKNAME mechanism in MSRP shouldn't be limited to 
> > MSRP. My suggestion, for what it's worth, is that you (1) split the 
> > nickname reservation mechanism out into a separate draft, and (2) use 
> > either SIP or the XCON Conference Control Protocol instead of MSRP.
> >
> > -----
> >
> > As a minor additional issue: one of the fundamental precepts of the 
> > conferencing framework (even pre-XCON) was that non-conference-aware 
> > participants should be able to participate in conferences, albeit 
> > with less control of the conference itself. To that end, it would 
> > probably be beneficial to indicate how participants who don't have 
> > CPIM clients will work.
> >
> > I think there are sensible ways of addressing this (e.g. if such a 
> > user sends a message, then the MSRP mixer adds a CPIM envelope that 
> > includes the user's identity, as learned during session 
> > establishment) -- they should probably be called out so that 
> > implementors of MSRP mixers will have some guidance around how they 
> > should behave..
> >
> > /a
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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


_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple