RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar

[Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com]

Hi,

I'm a bit lost with the MESSAGE and PTT stuff. I originally made the reference to MESSAGE as an analogy (comparison between one-shot and session-based communication), not suggesting it should be related to conferencing. Carrying voice clips in SIP MESSAGE payload has been implemented, but in my terminology that is called "voice IM" and not "PTT". 

One point I want to make is actually quite specific to MSRP-based comference media and doing whispering (meaning in that case sending a single message to a conference subset) with that. I think it is possible to solve this particular problem with a different mechanism than envisioned for the sidebars. This would simply be done by leveraging the specific capabilities of MSRP as a transport.

I agree that for RTP-based media the mechanism of doing one-shot vs. longer-lasting communication within a conference might be the same. 

But continuing with the MESSAGE vs. MSRP analogy: If MESSAGE did not exist, what would you do if you explictly wanted to send a single IM, and not start a chat session? Similar distinction might be needed for a sidebar, if you wanted to use that mechanism for conveying one-shot "whisper".

Markus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xcon-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Brian Rosen
> Sent: 16 November, 2004 19:57
> To: 'Paul Kyzivat'
> Cc: oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org; Isomaki Markus 
> (Nokia-TP/Espoo)
> Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> 
> 
> I am in agreement with all of your points.
> 
> If folks have use cases for whisper for which isn't the 
> agent/coach/mark
> scenario we have been discussing, could we surface those now?
> 
> For the basic sequence, would you accept a MESSAGE + talkspurt body
> for a PTT whisper implementation?  Somehow, I suspect not, 
> but speak up.
> 
> Brian
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat at cisco.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 12:50 PM
> > To: Brian Rosen
> > Cc: Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com; oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Brian Rosen wrote:
> > > I like it.  So, the UI starts by assuming one, and learns 
> if it needs to
> > > switch to the other.  Could work.
> > 
> > Maybe. There are potential problems ensuring that you get 
> to the right
> > destination when switching. But if you start out using 
> MESSAGE, then you
> > already have that problem from one message to the next - 
> switching to an
> > INVITE w/MSRP doesn't make that worse.
> > 
> > > I'm not clear how this applies to audio or video.
> > 
> > Its certainly clearer with IM. Maybe it can't be pushed any 
> further than
> > that.
> > 
> >  > I get a "push to talk",
> > > but unless you lock the push button down, it really seems 
> to be two UI
> > > functions.
> > 
> > If you are comparing PTT to regular audio I agree. A fairer 
> comparison
> > might be a PTT UI implemented as an audio clip in a MESSAGE vs
> > implemented as an audio media stream with floor control.
> > 
> >  > Now, that is really up to the UI designer and not subject to
> > > standardization.  The standardization question is whether 
> you want to
> > define
> > > a no-state talkspurt-is-coming-now-send-it-where-it-needs-to-go
> > equivalent
> > > to MESSAGE.
> > 
> > "Equivalent to MESSAGE"? MESSAGE is fully capable of this 
> now, subject
> > only to message size limitations. Those don't apply if you 
> use a flow
> > controlled connection path. The question is whether you 
> want to use it.
> > 
> >  > You could do this with SIP, or you could do it with some media
> > > control function.  What are you suggesting?
> > 
> > I'm only suggesting that this is a similar problem, at least wrt IM.
> > 
> > In the case of IM, while we aren't going to standardize the 
> UI, I think
> > we are going to have to come up with some kind of best practice
> > recommendation, or use cases, to ensure that we have interoperation
> > among implementations that otherwise make incompatible choices about
> > which technique to use in a given case.
> > 
> > In your case, I get the impression that the people who are 
> arguing that
> > whisper is special have some particular use cases in mind, 
> where to them
> > the use of page mode IM will sometimes be desired.
> > 
> > I think you may need to get down to specific use cases, and 
> how they are
> > implemented, to get everyone on the same page.
> > 
> > > I like the general tone of this, because I've always been 
> unhappy with
> > > conferencing having to deal with MESSAGE differently than 
> all other
> > media.
> > > I'd like to either find an equivalent for other media, or 
> just not use
> > it
> > > for conferencing.
> > 
> > I wish MESSAGE had never been created.
> > 
> > 	Paul
> > 
> > > Brian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat at cisco.com]
> > >>Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:40 AM
> > >>To: Brian Rosen
> > >>Cc: Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com; oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org
> > >>Subject: Re: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> > >>
> > >>Trimmed the discussion. Comment at end.
> > >>
> > >>	Paul
> > >>
> > >>Brian Rosen wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>I'm still pretty confused about this.
> > >>>
> > >>>Somehow, you think a whisper is a very transient thing.  
> That's not my
> > >>>experience.  Usually, the coach opens a whisper function 
> and coaches
> > >>>the agent throughout the transaction.  It's not a push 
> to talk, it
> > >>>really is more stateful.
> > >>>
> > >>>Of course, many sidebars are one shot side comments from one
> > participant
> > >>>to another.
> > >>>
> > >>>The thing is, you don't know the user's intent; you 
> don't know if they
> > >>>intend to do a one shot, or intend to leave the channel 
> open, unless
> > >>>you give them two UI functions.  Since that would seem 
> to be equally
> > >>>applicable to whispers and sidebars,
> > >>
> > >>This isn't unique to conferencing. We are going to have 
> exactly the same
> > >>problem in trying to decide between session mode and page 
> mode for e2e
> > >>IM. Do you want two distinct UIs for the two? Or do you 
> want to have one
> > >>UI that makes a decision on which to use?
> > >>
> > >>I think it will probably become a requirement for a good 
> IM UI to make
> > >>the decision. I think this will be the case because page mode will
> > >>probably continue to be abused when session mode is more 
> appropriate, so
> > >>  even if the UI would prefer to use session mode for a 
> conversation, it
> > >>will have to be capable of using page mode if that is all 
> the other
> > >>party is willing to do.
> > >>
> > >>	Paul
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> XCON mailing list
> XCON at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> 

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
XCON at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon