Re: [Simple] [Standards] New draft submitted: "Attention Request (POKE) for Instant Messaging"

[Gustavo <ggb at tid.es>]

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 06/16/2008 10:37 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 06/16/2008 8:05 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>>> On Mon Jun 16 09:07:32 2008, Gustavo wrote:
>>>> We have submitted a new draft specifying a method to send attention
>>>> requests in a SIP messaging system.  Any comment, suggestion or
>>>> criticism will be more than welcomed.
>>> I note you've referenced XEP-0224. I think it'd be useful if both
>>> protocols actually used the same XML namespace, so I'll suggest that on
>>> the XMPP standards list - I think that XMPP could probably still change,
>>> so picking the namespace from this document may be most sensible, but
>>> I'm hoping people will let me know if XEP-0224 has already been widely
>>> implemented.
>> I would not say that XEP-0224 has been implemented widely yet.
> 
> Andreas Monitzer reports that XEP-0224 has been implemented in both
> Pidgin (formerly Gaim) and Adium:
> 
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-June/019130.html
> 
>>> I'm not entirely sold on the neccessity to be able to play tunes with
>>> the attention request whilst vibrating their laptop - presumably most
>>> useful for added effect on the low notes - and in more general terms, I
>>> prefer the concepts of XEP-0224, Section 6 - quite how the recipient
>>> should have their attention gained should be fully under the control of
>>> the recipient.
>> +1 to that.

This draft allows the sender to indicate preferences for the attention 
request, but the final decision is fully under the control of the 
recipient.

> If we go that route and don't include all the bells and whistles (and
> flashing lights and vibrations and whatever all else is currently in
> draft-garcia-simple-poke-00), then presumably we could all use the same
> XML schema and namespace. XEP-0224 is still experimental, so the XMPP
> Registrar has not yet issued a permanent namespace for that extension.
> However, this spec could easily be moved forward in the XSF's standards
> process since it's already implemented. Alternatively, we could defer to
> the work in the SIMPLE WG. I don't have a strong preference in that
> regard. However, if the SIMPLE WG proceeds with a more complex solution
> then folks in the XMPP community might go with a simpler solution and we
> could gateway the basic functionality without supporting lights and
> tones and such in XMPP.

We don't know yet the opinion of the SIMPLE WG, but the opinion of the 
draft authors is that being able to indicate the preferred realization 
of the attention request (e.g. vibration + lights) can provide an added 
value and it would be useful to standardize it to avoid incompatible 
proprietary extensions.

All the bells and whistles are optional, you can send a message with a 
simple "<poke/>".

We agree that using just one namespace and format for XMPP and SIMPLE 
could be valuable.

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