RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar

["Brian Rosen" <br at brianrosen.net>]

You can get the same effect by creating a mechanism to
signal a private message "context", send any number of 
MSRP IMs, and then signal tear down of the "context".  
The cost is two signaling exchanges (establishment and teardown),
and the user sees the same result as you wish.  It would
be up to your UI whether it wanted to assume that 
only one IM was sent within the context, or multiple IMs.

The advantage of course is that it works for all
media the same way.

Whether the recipients could, without any other
signaling, reply to you, would be the difference
between a whisper and a sidebar.

I think creating a new SIP method for this specific case
is not a good idea.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aki Niemi [mailto:aki.niemi at nokia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 4:23 AM
> To: ext Brian Rosen
> Cc: 'Paul Kyzivat'; oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org;
> Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com
> Subject: Re: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Ok, let's forget terminology here for a while and jump right into
> use-case and solution space.
> 
> My use-case is simple: I want to be able to send a private instant
> message within a conference at any time, to any other participant(s).
> Like in IRC, netmeeting, etc.
> 
> The solution is equally simple: I will create an extension method to
> MSRP called PRIVMSG. Upon receiving this method, the conference server
> will not do the usual fan-out to all participants (including myself),
> but will only deliver the message to the named participants in the CPIM
> header. If it doesn't support this extension, it will reject the request.
> 
> Call this what you will, a one-shot IM, a whisper, a private message, a
> sidebar or something else, but the bottom line is that this is
> definitely needed in IM conferences. Otherwise, I don't believe this
> stuff will ever fly, since IRC will beat it hands down in functionality.
> I would also find it odd if our xcon framework is too voice-centric to
> accomodate this feature in a reasonable way.
> 
> Cheers,
> Aki
> 
> ext Brian Rosen wrote:
> > 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
> >
> 




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