Subject: RE: [Simple] OMA and draft-niemi-simple-chat-03.txt

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:20:33 -0600

When this draft was discussed previously, the discussion was that the
aliasing (nickname) problem was a more general SIP problem and it was
proposed that a team be assembled to address that general problem. I'm
assuming that team never formed or if they did are there any conclusions
to share? 

And, I thought the sidebar functionality was suggested to be supported
by the work in XCON. 

I'm in agreement with Hisham in that I'd rather not see a specialized
solution for OMA pushed through when general solutions are more
appropriate. 

Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Dean Willis
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:05 PM
To: Hisham Khartabil
Cc: Simple WG
Subject: Re: [Simple] OMA and draft-niemi-simple-chat-03.txt

I just had a chat with some of the OMA messaging people, and the main  
thing they're dealing with is sidebar conversations in MSRP  
conferences. They also want dynamic alias negotiation. They'll send  
some requirements docs and supporting material to the list in the  
next few days.

It would be nice to find a path towards a solution that works for  
everybody involved.

--
Dean Willis
IETF liaison to OMA.

On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Hisham Khartabil wrote:

> This draft is not mature at all and I hope OMA don't force SIMPLE  
> to stick to whatever is in there just because that's how they  
> defined their service to be (some of us have the opinion that  
> whatever is in there now is broken and does not work with MSRP  
> properly).
>
> Thanks,
> Hisham
>
> On Feb 9, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
>
>>
>> OMA's messaging working group is all abuzz about their alleged  
>> need for draft-niemi-simple-chat-03.txt to become an RFC.
>>
>> I'm trying to figure exactly which part of this draft they think  
>> they need, and I'll get back with you when I have more  
>> information. So far, they've told me that their entire chat room  
>> approach is built around this draft. I presume they're using the  
>> MSRP extension in this draft, but don't know for sure.
>>
>> However, it may be time to give this draft another read, and see  
>> what we think about the problem set it's trying to solve -- N-way  
>> centralized MSRP conferencing with sidebars.
>>
>> --
>> Dean
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Simple mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>

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

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

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:54:46 -0500

I'm in violent agreement with Mary and Hisham.

There are a number of things that concern me:

- the balkanization of media, in that certain features that
   ought to be media independent are instead implemented in
   a unique way for this one medium.

- I never liked distsend, for the reason above - it is an
   end run around sidebars. But in addition to that it has
   been recently pointed out on the list that it can't work,
   because only SEND is chunked in MSRP.

- as Mary mentions, nicknames aren't just an IM issue.
   (Balkanization again.) And getting the semantics of
   nicknames right may be tricky. (Within a particular
   context (greater than a single conference session)
   I don't want the same nickname to be grabbed by
   different people too easily.)

	Paul

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:32:26 +0200

> solution for OMA pushed through when general solutions are more

We'll be more than happy to incorporate the generalized sidebar 
functionality in; is there an I-D I can reference here?

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:43:08 +0200

Paul,

I'm not half as concerned about this balkanization of conferencing 
features as you appear to be. In fact, I think what you describe is only 
a problem if we look at things with the standards-committee glasses on. 
Of course then, everything even remotely resembling conferencing needs 
to be dumped to XCON, which we are now eagerly waiting to get their act 
together so we can make forward progress.

Why I think MSRP chat is important and needs to get done *now* is that 
without multi-user chat, MSRP will pale in comparison to every other 
chat out there. Check out IRC or Jabber MUC. They both have nicknames, 
private messages (!=sidebar) and sidebars. Done in chat-specific way.

I happen to believe we can make these features in a chat specific way in 
MSRP and whenever XCON gets the generic mechanisms ready, we can migrate 
to them. So where's the problem?

Cheers,
Aki

ext Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>> This draft is not mature at all and I hope OMA don't force SIMPLE  to 
>>> stick to whatever is in there just because that's how they  defined 
>>> their service to be (some of us have the opinion that  whatever is in 
>>> there now is broken and does not work with MSRP  properly).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Hisham
>>>
>>>> OMA's messaging working group is all abuzz about their alleged  need 
>>>> for draft-niemi-simple-chat-03.txt to become an RFC.
>>>>
>>>> they need, and I'll get back with you when I have more  information. 
>>>> So far, they've told me that their entire chat room  approach is 
>>>> built around this draft. I presume they're using the  MSRP extension 
>>>> in this draft, but don't know for sure.
>>>>

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:49:43 +0200

I want to stress Aki's point here. Existing proprietary systems all 
offer multiuser chat type of functions. Other standards, namely jabber, 
offer also the same function. I can't understand why are we neglecting 
MSRP the well-deserved chat functionality. Or is the a plan to make MSRP 
a looser?

/Miguel

Aki Niemi wrote:
>>> I just had a chat with some of the OMA messaging people, and the 
>>> main  thing they're dealing with is sidebar conversations in MSRP  

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:[email-masked]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland

---

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:08:15 +0100

No one is denying MSRP the chat functionality. People want it and need  
it. But there is nothing wrong with arguing the technical solution at  
hand.

I agree with you that we need a solution *now*, and no one can argue  
against the fact that XCON has been slow in producing results. My  
objection to the draft is the LISTSEND method.

Can you remind folks why a solution similar to  
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list- 
message-06.txt is not acceptable?

Hisham

On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Miguel Garcia wrote:

> offer multiuser chat type of functions. Other standards, namely  
> jabber, offer also the same function. I can't understand why are we  
> neglecting MSRP the well-deserved chat functionality. Or is the a plan  
> to make MSRP a looser?
>
> /Miguel
>
>
> Aki Niemi wrote:
>> Paul,
>> features as you appear to be. In fact, I think what you describe is  
>> only a problem if we look at things with the standards-committee  
>> glasses on. Of course then, everything even remotely resembling  
>> conferencing needs to be dumped to XCON, which we are now eagerly  
>> waiting to get their act together so we can make forward progress.
>> Why I think MSRP chat is important and needs to get done *now* is  
>> that without multi-user chat, MSRP will pale in comparison to every  
>> other chat out there. Check out IRC or Jabber MUC. They both have  
>> nicknames, private messages (!=sidebar) and sidebars. Done in  
>> chat-specific way.
>> I happen to believe we can make these features in a chat specific way  
>> in MSRP and whenever XCON gets the generic mechanisms ready, we can  
>> migrate to them. So where's the problem?
>> Cheers,
>> Aki
>> ext Paul Kyzivat wrote:

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:16:58 +0200

Hisham Khartabil wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-06.txt 
> is not acceptable?
> 

In fact it is. Our current working copy (that we are struggling to 
finalize), is not using a new MSRP method for distribution of messages 
(uses the SEND method). It also uses the To, Cc, and Bcc headers in the 
Message/CPIM wrapper to indicate the distribution list.

/Miguel

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:37:21 -0500

> a problem if we look at things with the standards-committee glasses on. 

My concern is not one of standards-committee turf.

My concern is that I want to be able to use multiple media in a 
conference - say voice and IM, or PTT and IM. And I don't want to be 
forced to set up a different call to the focus for each medium. All the 
IM vendors are starting to offer voice as well. So the combination has 
to work well.

Effectively what you are proposing is an in-band mixer control protocol 
for a conference involving MSRP. How does that fit in to a conference 
where I have voice and video as well as MSRP?

Should we develop a separate in-band mixer control protocol for each 
media type? Maybe that is the right answer. But if it isn't the right 
answer for all media that make sense in a conference, then why is it the 
right answer for one of them?

Note that in the case of Jabber, the IM channel and the signaling 
channel are the same. So for them the issues are different. Even then, 
how do they handle voice mixer control? Can I send a voice whisper to a 
nickname?

> to them. So where's the problem?

Well, if this is intended as a short term solution until XCON is done, 
then lets admit that and decide if that is a good way forward. That does 
cast a different light on it. I'm not sure what my opinion on that is. I 
agree that XCON hasn't been progressing well, and it would be good to 
get MSRP deployed. But I fear that once started down the wrong road it 
is hard to get back on the right road.

	Paul