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

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:41:47 -0600

Aki,

There is an alternative proposal using MSRP for conferencing in XCON
that discusses sidebars:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boulton-xcon-msrp-conferencing
-02.txt

This document refers to the sidebar functionality provided by the XCON
framework (in section 9.4)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-framework-02.txt

Certainly, this work is incomplete with more detail being required in
the example and we are seeking feedback on this approach for sidebars. 

I think discussion of sidebars should continue on the XCON WG mailing
list. 

That all said, one of the other issues I raised was based on Dean's
subsequent email that OMA wanted the aliasing and I am also (and perhaps
more so) concerned about that not being provided in a generalized form
to meet requirements of other applications.  For example, a similar idea
has been discussed in the context of the conference control protocol on
the XCON WG mailing list in terms of providing some sort of abbreviated
URI or handle.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon/current/msg01648.html

And, this all brings us back to another comment made on this work in
that "we need a way to manage the overlap between this work in the three
working groups that are discussing it -- xcon, simple, and sipping."  

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: Aki Niemi [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:32 AM
To: Barnes, Mary [RICH2:B601:EXCH]
Cc: Dean Willis; Hisham Khartabil; Simple WG
Subject: Re: [Simple] OMA and draft-niemi-simple-chat-03.txt

ext Mary Barnes wrote:
> 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. 

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

Cheers,
Aki

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

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:54:18 -0600

I agree with most of Pauls' comments and just have a few additional
comments embedded below [MB].

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:37 AM
To: Aki Niemi
Cc: Barnes, Mary [RICH2:B601:EXCH]; Simple WG; Dean Willis
Subject: Re: [Simple] OMA and draft-niemi-simple-chat-03.txt

Aki Niemi wrote:
> 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. 

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?

> 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?

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.

[MB] I don't think it's productive to be bashing XCON considering that
it's really not progressed any slower than alot of other work underway.
We are making progress in XCON and at this point we need additional
feedback from WG members.  The framework document has been available for
feedback for quite some time.  My concern is that if we decide that this
draft is a "short term" solution, I don't think we've done a good job of
keeping short term solutions short term (i.e., all the ones I can think
of are still around and likely to stay that way - e.g., PAI and
pre-MIDCOM work).   That all said, I don't think this approach would be
incompatible with later providing the functionality with XCON.  However,
I think the more important hurdle is whether this functionality should
be provided in this manner (by changing MSRP) when it can be provided in
a more general form with the XCON model. I think it's very subjective to
say that this work has a better chance of being completed in SIMPLE than
in XCON. 
[/MB] 

	Paul

> Cheers,
> Aki
> 
> ext Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>
>> Mary Barnes wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>> Mary.
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>