Subject: Re: [Simple] RE: [Sipping] RE: text/T140 and audio/t140 was:[avt]Comments/questions on draft-ietf-av

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:43:42 -0500

Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> Well, MSRP is being designed so it can be used point to point. OTOH, 
> it seems that nobody believes it will be used that way in practice. 

Perhaps nobody except for me.

> Most people seem to think that network administrators won't want to 
> let IM thru the firewall without logging it.

I certainly have higher hopes for MSRP than use exclusively in 
enterprise applications. I don't think that it's unrealistic to believe 
that, at some point in the future, ISPs will include SIP registrars as 
readily as they currently do SMTP MTAs. If that happens, I can't imagine 
that residential users of MSRP clients will do anything *but* 
point-to-point.

/a

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

---

From: "Arnoud van Wijk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:50:47 +0200

Good point Paul!

Also..I want to point it out again...
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT REPLACING INSTANT MESSAGING WITH INTERACTIVE TEXT!

Most of you already know that. But just today I met another person who still
thinks Interactive text is to replace IM.

I do not understand the hostility from several IM people. Interactive text
is even going to make IM better! See it as an additional valuable service
for IM.
Users exchange IM messages, and then a discussion starts, they switch over
into real-time chat mode. Discuss things, work out plans in real-time. Then
end the real-time chat mode.
And the next 2 hours they exchange a few IM messages.

And I do hear from many ICQ users who miss the real-time chat mode. That was
easier to use. And with SIP, server load is not an issue anymore, which
caused ICQ to scrap this option.

Cheers

Arnoud

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: vrijdag 25 juni 2004 1:16
To: 'Paul Kyzivat'; 'Guido Gybels'
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Simple] RE: [Sipping] RE: text/T140 and audio/t140
was:[avt]Comments/questions on draft-ietf-av

Paul,

> I accept your point that IM isn't suitable for a bunch of the
> communication needs of the hearing impaired. (Among others.) But I also
> want you to accept that RTT isn't a suitable substitute for IM in the
> applications that millions (actually probably 10s or 100s of millions)
> of people use it everyday.

ICQ once had a mode wherein one could send character-at-a-time and it worked
pretty well (may still be in there).  What was nice about it was that one
could begin his/her reply even before the other person finished his/her
message.  I found the two-way exchange much better than today's IM systems,
as there was virtually no delay-- it was real-time.

One of the reasons why the IM systems today have problems in scaling is that
they have to interface with servers that handle message exchange between all
those users you spoke about.  The farm of servers to run the existing IM
systems do a lot of work and it's not a trivial task.  The problem with the
model is that farm of central servers that receive and dispatch messages.
(Perhaps SIMPLE has done something to improve on the current state of
technology, but I'll confess that I don't know.)

If we can solve the scalability issues required to handle lots of voice and
video streams flowing between users, then it would not take a great leap to
do the same thing for text (literally).  There may be more text sessions,
but the only change in resource requirements from blocks of text and RTT are
the resources required to process messages (as there are more RTT packets).
For voice, those fifty or so packets per second would not flow through
centralized servers and neither should the text.  If the system operated
allowing media to flow point-to-point, the RTT would scale.  I guess the
question is whether we will be able to allow audio to flow point-to-point or
whether the FWs, NATs, "session border controllers", and such devices will
inhibit that.

Paul

-
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: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:59:31 -0500

Hey Paul, 

You raise an interesting point that has previously gone unnoticed.  (at
least by me).  

Phone calls are not routinely recorded and it is illegal to record calls
without permission.  However IM can, and as you say, is being logged.  And
email is too.   I think deaf people would like their text phone
conversations to be as wire-tap free as voice phone conversations.   This is
something that has not been on the radar screen before now.   We need to add
this to TTY equivalency list - since TTY calls also have phone tap
restrictions on them equivalent to voice phone tap restrictions I believe. 

Gregg

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

But those techniques don't lend themselves to easily 
monitoring/recording all the media. Because IM is newer and so lacks the 
legal precedents that voice has, and because the volume (in bits) of IM 
is substantially less than voice, it is feasible to log it all. (Whether 
that is a good thing from a social perspective or not.) At least in case 
of IM to/from enterprises it seems that is the intent. That argues 
against using an approach where relays are extra burdensome.

	Paul (K)

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:06:47 -0400

Adam,

I hope you are right! Perhaps I am being overly pessimistic.

However it seems like many of those residential users may end up needing 
a relay for NAT/FW traversal.

	Paul