Subject: RE: [Simple] Chat sessions

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 20:41:49 -0500

Probably, I just answered this.

A private message is a sidebar with exactly two participants.  A sidebar is
a set of private messages with possibly more than two participants.  The way
you render these could be the same, or different if you wish.  The only
thing that matters is whether there is any functional difference.  I don't
think that there is.

Consider a push to talk one-on-one voice connection within a conference.
That's pretty close to a private message.  If I implemented that, how would
you want me to do it?  As a sidebar?  As a media policy manipulation?
How about the "whisper" function in a call center.  Same thing.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niemi Aki (Nokia-M/Espoo) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 12:54 PM
> To: ext Rosen, Brian
> Cc: ext Jonathan Rosenberg; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Simple] Chat sessions
> 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Please go back to my previous post where I make a comparison 
> to similar
> (if not identical) functionality in IRC. There, sidebars and private
> messages are clearly separate functionality.
> 
> If you can show that the analogy between IRC and IM conferences is
> false, or describe how sidebars alone are enough to implement this 
> functionality in IM conferences, I'm happy to back down on this
> issue.
> 
> Cheers,
> Aki
> 
> ext Rosen, Brian wrote:
> > Aki
> > 
> > My post was meant to point out that we had decided to implement
> > sidebars as separate dialogs from main conferences, which is similar
> > to making "private messages" separate dialogs from a main IM dialog.
> > In that way, I think that sidebars and private messages are 
> the same;
> > they are media sent to a subset of participants in the group.  If
> > there is a reason to allow a special way to subset 
> destinations for a
> >  private message rather than the entire chat group, then whatever 
> > argument you make would apply to a sidebar.
> > 
> > Brian
> 
> <snip />
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: "Niemi Aki (Nokia-M/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 07:26:51 +0200

> thing that matters is whether there is any functional difference.  I don't

I think what you're referring to is a private sidebar. Being able to 
receive a private message sent inside a conference (or a sidebar) would 
require no additional action from the recipient, whereas setting up a 
private sidebar requires that the invitee also agrees to have the 
sidebar, joins it etc.

> How about the "whisper" function in a call center.  Same thing.

Of course you can't do private messages with voice. Voice and IM are 
inherently different. You can't send private voice packets to another 
participant of a conference, simply because there isn't a way to single 
out a participant in a conference by directly addressing packets there. 
It also makes mixing really complicated, because a private voice stream 
might overlap with the rest of the conference. These don't present a 
problem for IM; the sender can single out the recipient using the cpim 
To header field and the recipient UA can simply mark a message as 
private and render it to the same UI as the rest of the IMs in that 
conference.

Just because voice as a media has this limitation, are we supposed to 
suppress features available in other medias? I don't think so.

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: "Niemi Aki (Nokia-M/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 07:26:51 +0200

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:44:05 -0500

> private and render it to the same UI as the rest of the IMs in that 

So generically it seems that what you are requesting is a way to send 
mixer control instructions in the media stream. (Ignore the normal 
mixing rules for this message. Instead, send it to the following 
participants.) And apparently you also require some annotation of the 
delivered message, indicating what sort of mixing was applied to it, so 
it can be displayed with appropriate annotation.

Do I have that right? I'm not sure this is a good idea, but neither am I 
sure it is a bad idea.

> suppress features available in other medias? I don't think so.

Well, I guess that is the advantage of being involved in the definition 
of the media stream. But if it catches on, maybe somebody will want to 
change RTP to support this.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:44:05 -0500

---

From: "Niemi Aki (Nokia-M/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 08:12:25 +0200

ext Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> participant of a conference, simply because there isn't a way to 
>> single out a participant in a conference by directly addressing 
>> packets there. It also makes mixing really complicated, because a 
>> private voice stream might overlap with the rest of the conference. 
>> These don't present a problem for IM; the sender can single out the 
>> recipient using the cpim To header field and the recipient UA can 
>> simply mark a message as private and render it to the same UI as the 
>> rest of the IMs in that conference.
> 
> 

Exactly.

It also occured to me that it ought to be possible to negotiate the 
support for doing this sort of thing when joining the conference. What 
we don't want happening is that the UA expects to be able to control the 
mixing, but the mixer ignores it. In chat, that would result in a 
private message being seen by all participants - definitely not a good 
thing to have happen.

> Do I have that right? I'm not sure this is a good idea, but neither am I 

I think what determines whether it is a good idea or a bad idea greatly 
depends on the media type. For some, like IM, it makes more sense than 
to others.

> change RTP to support this.

Right, it could be possible.

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: "Niemi Aki (Nokia-M/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 08:12:25 +0200

Exactly.

Cheers,
Aki