RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar

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

Okay, I understand.  I think it's a sidebar.  In real life, you often get a
response, but not always.

The real question is the same one I posed to others:
	Do you want a MESSAGE + audio body or do you want some state
		established, media flow, and teardown?

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boyer, David G (Dave) [mailto:dgboyer at avaya.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:52 PM
> To: Brian Rosen; Noa Kissilov; Paul Kyzivat
> Cc: oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org; Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com
> Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> 
> Noa, Brian -
> 
> I actually would add a 4th case to Noa's list - that would be where
> one participant actually whispers to another person (the whisperer - I
> guess I mad up that word - could tell the presenter they forgot to make
> a point).
> I would argue that case 3 (passing a note) is analogous to sending an IM
> to a fellow conference participant.  The difference is, in a face to face
> conference, you might see the note being passed.  In an audio conference
> you don't know if attendies are also having private, side-bar, IM
> sessions.
> 
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xcon-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> > Brian Rosen
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:27 AM
> > To: 'Noa Kissilov'; 'Paul Kyzivat'
> > Cc: oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org; Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com
> > Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> >
> >
> > I understand your use case.
> >
> > I don't think that is a classic whisper (agent, coach, mark).
> >
> > If it applies to audio, either you think MESSAGE with audio is
> >   a reasonable way to do it, or you expect some kind of signaling,
> >   possibly not SIP, "opens a channel", allows you to speak, and
> >   then returns you to the regular program.
> >
> >   If the latter, then:
> > 	It is identical to the signaling you would expect to use
> > 	for sidebars
> >
> > 	You would expect to use it for text as well as audio/video
> > 	instead of MESSAGE
> >
> > In all of this, of course, nothing stops you from sending a
> > MESSAGE to any person, including a participant, outside of
> > the conference context.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Noa Kissilov [mailto:NoaK at radvision.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:58 AM
> > > To: Brian Rosen; Paul Kyzivat
> > > Cc: oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org; Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com
> > > Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> > >
> > > I think of the following analogy, though it might not at
> > all be relevant
> > > - just to put it up:
> > > Say we have a regular conference (non virtual) - people meeting in a
> > > room to discuss something. There are 3 ways for people to
> > talk to each
> > > other:
> > > 1. participate in the main conference
> > > 2. have a private conversation - leave the room for a while
> > or talk to
> > > some other person/people while the main conference is going on.
> > > Obviously the people gathering aside are aware of the main
> > conference,
> > > can hear it, but it's not their main focus (unless very
> > talanted people
> > > :-) )
> > > 3. write a note to someone else in the room. Until the
> > answer arrives
> > > one fully participates in the main conference. This is a
> > way for people
> > > to talk amongst themselves but still remain with the focus
> > on the main
> > > conference. The private conversation is done in the background.
> > >
> > > So I see 2 as equivalent to sidebars, where 3 is equivalent
> > to whispers.
> > > The difference is the context of the private conversation, or where
> > > exactly the listening is - in the sidebar or in the main conference.
> > > Saying this, a whisper cannot be a sidebar of 2
> > participants, that is on
> > > going. It has to be a momentary sidebar, intended only for
> > one message
> > > and terminated right after (and everybody is back in the main
> > > conference).
> > >
> > >     noa.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xcon-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces at ietf.org]
> > On Behalf Of
> > > Brian Rosen
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 19:57
> > > To: 'Paul Kyzivat'
> > > Cc: oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org; Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com
> > > 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
> >
> 




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