Subject: RE: Tiny ant vs big Mammoths, was RE: [Simple] Using MSRP for realtime text conversation

From: "Guido Gybels" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 08:26:51 +0100

All,

<<But introducing new interactive text formats raises the danger of
incompatibilities. So that is why I am negative about just using MSRP for
interactive text.>>

Arnoud is, as usual, right. The very last thing we should even contemplate is introducing competing solutions for deaf people's communication needs. Remember what has happened in the PSTN and how as a direct result of that deaf andf hard of hearing people have hugely lost out in society.

As far as t140/RTP is concerned: that was not randomly chosen, but after careful analysis of the problem in combination with looking at real-world constraints in terms of bandwidth, cost, practicality, etc.

For all clarity: so far there is *NO* scientific data whatsoever that shows there is a more bandwidth effective solution than t140/RTP. So, if people don't want to agree with that, can I respectfully suggest they submit relevant data from repeatable experiments that we can peer review.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about t140/RTP it seems. Arnoud and Gunnar are doing a great job in educating the community, so keep it up!

Best wishes,

Guido

Guido Gybels
Director of New Technologies

RNID, 19-23 Featherstone Street
London EC1Y 8SL, UK
Tel +44(0)207 294 3713
Fax +44(0)207 296 8069

************************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. Any views or opinions expressed
are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
RNID policy.

If you are not the intended recipient you are advised that any
use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify the RNID
Helpdesk by telephone on: +44 (0) 207 296 8282.

The Royal National Institute for Deaf People  
Registered Office 19-23 Featherstone Street 
London EC1Y 8SL No. 454169 (England)
Registered Charity No. 207720
************************************************************************

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

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:52:13 -0400

> There is a lot of misunderstanding about t140/RTP it seems. Arnoud and Gunnar are doing a great job in educating the community, so keep it up!

I don't have any data to add to this, but based on all the discussion 
here on the subject I am inclined to accept it.

So I will return to what I proposed several days ago:

I think we should assume that text/t140 (or perhaps audio/t140c) will be 
used for the transport of real time text. And what we should be 
discussing are the mechanisms by which the desire and ability to use it 
can be *effectively* and *efficiently* negotiated.

I also think that it makes sense that endpoints that are prepared to 
exchange text via MSRP should also be prepared to exchange it via 
text/t140 and visa versa. That is the path that will lead to the most 
ubiquitous availability of text communication between those that prefer 
one or the other of the modes. I doubt we can standardize this as a 
requirement in ietf, but we can define the signaling negotiations that 
support it, so that device vendors will know how to build something that 
can interoperate effectively.

What I think would *not* be effective is to expect every IM client to 
offer both MSRP and text/t140 every time it seeks to establish an IM 
session, just in case the called party prefers to use real time text.

Similarly, I don't think we should expect a text capable voice client to 
offer both audio and text/t140 when audio is preferred and there is no 
particular reason to expect use of text. It might make sense for such a 
device to offer audio/t140c, but maybe there is a better solution.

	Paul

---

From: "Arnoud van Wijk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:38:23 +0200

I keep it short:
Audio/t140c is ONLY and ONLY and again ONLY for PSTN trunking gateways. And
NOT and NOT and again...NOT for end-terminals!

And look at this:
An IP phone is able to be used with IM. It has a keyboard and a nice screen.
In that case, using Interactive text (text/t140) is so easy to implement.
Especially when that IP phone is able to use RTP, because it allows voice
over IP).

Adding text/t140 here cost nothing.

And I will have zero understanding if text/t140 is then skipped.

I am not even saying that the IM client must work with text/t140. No..as
long the same device also supports text/t140..I am happy. It is up to Cisco
and other IP phone manufacturers how to make the interface and such.
Seamlessly combined with the IM client or as a separate client.

And true, not everybody is forced to use Interactive text. If you want audio
only..fine... Just ensure that when you DO need Interactive text (being deaf
or even something silly as spelling the address of a street or a russian
name). Just make it available...and people WILL use it. 

Greetz

Arnoud

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Paul Kyzivat
Sent: donderdag 1 juli 2004 17:52
To: Guido Gybels
Cc: RNIDMAIL.GWIA."[email-masked]"; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Tiny ant vs big Mammoths, was RE: [Simple] Using MSRP for
realtimetext conversation

Guido Gybels wrote:
> Arnoud is, as usual, right. The very last thing we should even contemplate
is introducing competing solutions for deaf people's communication needs.
Remember what has happened in the PSTN and how as a direct result of that
deaf andf hard of hearing people have hugely lost out in society.
> 
> As far as t140/RTP is concerned: that was not randomly chosen, but after
careful analysis of the problem in combination with looking at real-world
constraints in terms of bandwidth, cost, practicality, etc.
> 
> For all clarity: so far there is *NO* scientific data whatsoever that
shows there is a more bandwidth effective solution than t140/RTP. So, if
people don't want to agree with that, can I respectfully suggest they submit
relevant data from repeatable experiments that we can peer review.
> 
> There is a lot of misunderstanding about t140/RTP it seems. Arnoud and
Gunnar are doing a great job in educating the community, so keep it up!

	Paul

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 13:58:24 -0400

> And I will have zero understanding if text/t140 is then skipped.

It does cost something. It requires that the port to receive the text be 
established. If there are NAT/FW issues, then it may be necessary to use 
ICE/STUN to make the port accessible. And if QoS is required, then 
additional actions are required to enable that.

If every phone is required to do that on every audio call, even though 
the text/t140 stream is only used in .01% of all calls, then I think 
there will be many objections.

The advantage of audio/t140c in this regard is that another stream would 
not be required. But I am not trying to say that is the right answer. 
Only that there should be some answer that doesn't have the problems I 
just mentioned above.

	Paul

---

From: "Gunnar Hellstrom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 21:35:58 +0200

Paul,
Please do not consider audio/t140c to be a text transport with IP terminals.
Its default form does not allow simultaneous voice and text. You need to go into use of
multiple SSRC:s in the same session to make it behave as Multimedia should behave. That
again introduces a multitude of options. It is purely intended for transport of textphone
text alternating with voice between gateways.

I cannot see why real time text would be less popular than IM. Deploy it in proper form
and it will be a natural part of a telephone call to take a part of it in text.  And IM
will look unpersonal and chunky in comparison, but still have its market.

I also cannot imagine that the number of ports would cause any real frustration. There are
so many extra ports set up without big concern, so why not the text ports that really
carry part of the kernel communication.
Would you like to do video as well on same ports as audio?

Gunnar

-------------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellstrom
Omnitor AB
Renathvagen 2
SE 121 37 Johanneshov
SWEDEN
+46 8 556 002 03
Mob: +46 708 204 288
www.omnitor.se
[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------

>From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 7:58 PM
>To: Arnoud van Wijk
>Cc: 'Guido Gybels'; 'RNIDMAIL.GWIA."[email-masked]"';
>[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[email-masked]

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 16:53:25 -0400

> text alternating with voice between gateways.

Fine. I don't care. Forget I ever mentioned t140c.

> I cannot see why real time text would be less popular than IM.

Maybe you can't. I can. It will be for the market to decide. Today lots 
of people have IM and don't have RTT. You have to get over a hurdle for 
it to be possible for them to interact with RTT in any way. That will be 
easier if the hurdle is lower.

 > Deploy it in proper form
> and it will be a natural part of a telephone call to take a part of it in text. 

I believe for most people who use both voice and IM, the two are 
mutually exclusive - they aren't typically both used on the same "call". 
There are lots of reasons for that:

- the protocols used are different, and managed independently within the 
devices

- the ergonomics of the device often make it difficult to use both 
simultaneously.

- many IM users don't have (or don't use) voice on the same device that 
they use IM. IM on the PC, voice on the phone.

At the least, the ergonomics will disfavor using both on lots of devices 
regardless of how well the the software is integrated.

 > And IM

That's an opinion. I think they are almost different media, in the same 
way that IM and email are different media. For many purposes, like the 
one right here, I prefer email. I don't consider it clunkier - just 
different. It gives me a little time to consider what I what to say 
before committing to it.

Similarly IM still gives me a little time to consider, just not at much.
With IM I often type half a line and the reconsider and delete it. With 
RTT you see all that - which often I would prefer you did not.

> Would you like to do video as well on same ports as audio?

Note that I threw that out as a possibility, but I admitted it was 
perhaps not a good one.

And, I already explained all the other costs associated with using 
another port.

The alternative is to find a way to establish the session without the 
t140 stream that *might*, but probably *won't* be used. And yet, at the 
same time communicate the willingness to use t140 if desired.

*If* only a small fraction of all endpoints actually want to use t140, 
then they can offer it on every call where they initiate the offer. And 
when they receive an offer with just voice, they can accept it and then 
counter offer adding T.140. This is probably a good strategy for video 
today as well, where there are similar issues.

That means the vast majority of calls experience no cost for the 
support, because it isn't used. The calls where it is attempted and 
refused experience a small incremental cost, but presumably are willing 
to pay it for benefit.

	Paul

---

From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 13:03:57 -0500

I too worry about having multiple text conversation technologies. I don't
see it as bad theoretically.  Difference facilitates evolution. 

HOWEVER, if we have different formats, then 
1) EITHER everyone has to support ALL of them ALWAYS... 
OR
2) Everyone has to support ONE technique (as well as anything else they want
to )
OR 
3) SOMEONE must maintain TRANSLATORS EVERYWHERE and on ALL SYSTEMS.   
It is not clear that these would exist or who would pay for them.  

The alternative is that text calls fail.   We do it for voice (make sure it
works everywhere or is translated) but market forces ensure that. 

For text how will we ensure this.  I think it is #2 above - or else
failures. 

Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Guido Gybels
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 2:27 AM
To: RNIDMAIL.GWIA."[email-masked]"; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: Tiny ant vs big Mammoths, was RE: [Simple] Using MSRP for
realtime text conversation

All,

For all clarity: so far there is *NO* scientific data whatsoever that shows
there is a more bandwidth effective solution than t140/RTP. So, if people
don't want to agree with that, can I respectfully suggest they submit
relevant data from repeatable experiments that we can peer review.

Best wishes,

Guido

Guido Gybels

-
This list is maintained by Snowshore Networks - http://www.snowshore.com
All comments on this list are the comments of the message originators and
Snowshore is not to be held responsible for any actions or comments found
on this list. The archives for this list can be found at
http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/toip_archive/maillist.html

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:28:09 -0400

> For text how will we ensure this.  I think it is #2 above - or else

Well, we already have a situation where there are multiple formats for 
text, even when limited to message based text: AIM format, Yahoo format, 
Jabber (XMPP) format, SIMPLE page mode format, (coming) SIMPLE session 
mode format (MSRP), ...

I doubt adding text/t140 to the list makes the situation much better 
*or* worse.

In most cases now you either need to run a separate client for each 
protocol, or else you run a client that supports multiple protocols.

Gateways would be good, and they exist to some extent. But the largest 
providers don't seem to think gateways are in their best interest, and 
so actively break them.

Of course a gateway solution wouldn't be very good for RTT, because its 
semantics are not message based like the others. Gateways would probably 
have to buffer test and look for message boundaries or something like 
that. (Getting RTT one character at a time in an AIM application 
wouldn't be very readable.)

So the chance of getting universal access to every text application 
looks pretty dismal right now, even if you were satisfied with message 
based IM.

	Paul

---

From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 13:29:18 -0500

Hi Paul,

That is exactly the point.   Hmmmmm 
Let me see if I can explain the difference,   the importance of this.

For those of us who can talk, IM is a convenience and if my IM doesn't work
with yours - no big deal. I can use the phone or email.  But for deaf
people, text conversation is like the phone.

What if there were lots of different phone systems and they didn't all work
together.  So to call you I had to find out what phone system you had and
then go sign up for that type of phone.  

Or like email
What if all the email didn't work together.
So that you could only email some people from some programs and call some
people from some phones.  To send an email you would first have to figure
out what email system the recipient had and then get one of those. 

This is why the FCC and other countries regulatory people are starting to
get involved. Because the regular market forces for text conversation are
not strong enough to guarantee that there is a text conversation method that
works everywhere   -- and that is equivalent to the phone system (for people
who cannot use the phone system). 

So - lots of message standards are fine but there has to either be
1 standard that you can always rely on 
OR - gateways that someone maintains that will always work to convert any
text conversation into any other.  

RE why IM isn't enough to replace interactive text or text conversation??  
Hmmm

Let me try that too  

Try a phone call where you say everything to yourself at normal speed before
you say it aloud to the other person.  Not only is the call twice as long,
but you will also find that the other person keeps being distracted, or
leaves the phone call.  It also breaks all the social conversation rules
(not messaging rules but that is different).  

It isn't that messaging isn't great.  It is.  But it does not remove the
need for conversation.  For the ability to respond immediately. To have that
immediacy.  

If you talk mostly and Message sometimes you don't understand what it would
be like to only be able to message.    People who are deaf LOVE messaging
and SWEAR BY messaging because it is so great compared to what they had.
And it will always be a great tool even if we have text conversation.

Give people the choice of messaging and text conversation and I think you
will find that most do not JUST use messaging.     Many will use IM to   and
text conversation to talk.     Some will do more with one than the other.
Some will do only I'm, - for example if they are poor typists.    (some
don't and won't use either because they are poor spellers)     But that
needs to be something that people can decide based on their needs - not
forced by the technology.   And in many cases, people's communication will
be severely hampered (by social conventions) if they can only message -
especially with hearing folk who are not friends and family.   

SO 
a) we need a text standard that interoperates across technologies and that
is always supported.   (then we can have as many other forms on devices as
we want - but something has to work across them).

b) it should be text conversation - though a universal IM would be welcomed
by all.

Gregg

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 11:28 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: 'Guido Gybels'; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Tiny ant vs big Mammoths, was RE: [Simple] Using MSRP for
realtime text conversation

	Paul