Subject: [Simple] [MSRP chat] Issue 7: Syntax of Nickname URI

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:39:58 +0300

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
 >> An example of a nickname is:
 >>
 >>           sip:[email-masked]
 >
 > If a nickname is scoped to a conference, the URI has to include a
 > conference identifier so that such URIs are unique and properly scoped.
 > I'd suggest something like:
 >
 > sip:"msrp-nicknames" "/" <nickname> "/" <conf-uri-userpart> @ domain

This comes as a side effect of the confusion with domain nicknames in
previous issues.

So, I agree that the nickname URI has to include the conference
URI. Earlier versions of the drat spoke about sip:nick@conf@domain,
and percentage encoding of the first '@' sgn. Please verify if the
text we used to have is still applicable

    Let us take a look at an example.  Assume the chat room URI allocated
    to a given chat room is 'sip:[email-masked]'.  A user whose
    nickname identifier is set to 'nordicguy' is represented with the
    nickname URI: 'sip:[email-masked]'.

    In another example the chat room URI does not include a username
    part.  For example, the chat room URI is 'sip:chat34.example.com'.
    In this context a user whose nickname is 'nordicguy' gets represented
    with a nickname URI of 'sip:[email-masked]'.

Let me know if the percentage encoding of the '@' is ok or you really
want to go with the "/" sign.

The second aspect you are you suggesting: we should create a
convention to represent nicknames so that they are distinguishable
from "regular" URIs. This corresponds to the "msrp-nicknames" in your
suggestion. I also think we need to do it, mostly for tracing and
debugging purposes, but I thought of using the user= parameter of a
SIP URI.

So, what about this syntax?

    sip:[email-masked];user=nikcname

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Siemens Networks     Espoo, Finland

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

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:20:00 -0400

inline

Miguel Garcia wrote:
> URI.

Why?

By my understanding we are not excluding domain nicknames - we are just 
not requiring them or specifying how they might work. Any syntactically 
correct nickname should be ok if the server finds it acceptable 
according to its own policies.

Perhaps there is need for some mandatory-to-implement naming convention 
for nicknames that are intended to be per-conference.

> Earlier versions of the drat spoke about sip:nick@conf@domain,

Some other possibilities:

	sip:[email-masked];conf=room34
  or	sip:[email-masked];name="nordicguy"

>    sip:[email-masked];user=nikcname

The user=nickname is an interesting idea. Would this mean that it would 
be possible to have both:

	sip:[email-masked]
	sip:[email-masked];user=nickname

and the two would be distinct, potentially owned by different people? 
That sounds like a pretty confusing situation. Isn't it sufficient for a 
particular domain name to be dedicated to either "regular AORs" or 
"nicknames", if that makes sense? And why would it be bad to use a real 
AOR (that you own) as a nickname if you want and the focus allows it?

	Paul

---

From: "Hisham Khartabil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:41:36 +1000

I think the nickname needs to include the conference identifier for the
reasons as follows:

I am in a chatroom where Alice is. I want to send a private message to
Alice, so my client just happens to pick Alice's nickname and send the
message to her in a normal SIP MESSAGE.

The way I think the MESSAGE should reach its destination of Alice's client
is via the chatroom server. So, in order for that to happen, the domain part
of the nickname should be routable to the chatroom.

So Miguel, looking at your examples
'sip:[email-masked]<[email-masked]>'
and 'sip:chat34.example.com' being both valid chatroom URIs. In both cases,
I think the nickname URI should look like <nickname>@chat34.example.com. The
latter chatroom URI is ok since it can be routable to the chatroom , but the
former is troublesom. Guidence is need to say that when a nickname is
created and the chatroom URI is in the form [email-masked], the 'room'
should be put as a subdomain in the form [email-masked].
Regards,
Hisham

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:24:28 -0400

Hisham,

Now you have almost embraced my concept of how this should work - that 
the nickname should be a sip routable address. But that does not require 
that it must identify the conference.

I agree that it makes sense that it identify the converence *if the 
nickname is scoped to the conference*. But if the nickname has a broader 
scope then of course it can't be scoped to the conference.

I see no problem with a nickname being a regular routable AOR, though 
most likely not all regular AORs will be suitable as nicknames. (There 
must be some way to verify that the nickname is authorized for use as a 
nickname by the user that is asserting it.

In the case that the nickname is scoped to a conference then the 
conference focus can act as a proxy to route messages, and it can choose 
to do so only when the user is in the conference.

It is also possible that the nickname is scoped to the conference server 
but not a particular conference. In that case it could still choose, if 
it desires, to only route messages to the nickname when the user is 
participating in a conference of that server.

	Thanks,
	Paul

Hisham Khartabil wrote:
> The way I think the MESSAGE should reach its destination of Alice's 
> client is via the chatroom server. So, in order for that to happen, the 
> domain part of the nickname should be routable to the chatroom.
>  
> So Miguel, looking at your examples 'sip:[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>' and 'sip:chat34.example.com 
> <http://chat34.example.com/>' being both valid chatroom URIs. In both 
> cases, I think the nickname URI should look like <nickname>@ 
> chat34.example.com <http://chat34.example.com>. The latter chatroom URI 
> is ok since it can be routable to the chatroom , but the former is 
> troublesom. Guidence is need to say that when a nickname is created and 
> the chatroom URI is in the form [email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>, the 'room' should be put as a subdomain in the 
> form [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>.
> Regards,
> Hisham
> 
> 
>  
> On 31/07/07, *Paul Kyzivat* <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     inline
> 
>     Miguel Garcia wrote:
>     <mailto:sip:[email-masked]>
>      >  >
>      >    to a given chat room is 'sip:[email-masked]
>     <mailto:sip:[email-masked]>'.  A user whose
>      >    nickname URI: 'sip:[email-masked]
>     <mailto:sip:[email-masked]>'.
> 
>            sip:[email-masked]
>     <mailto:sip:[email-masked]>;conf=room34
>     or    sip:[email-masked]
>     <mailto:sip:[email-masked]>;name="nordicguy"
> 
>      >    part.  For example, the chat room URI is
>     'sip:chat34.example.com <http://chat34.example.com>'.
>      >    with a nickname URI of 'sip:[email-masked]
>     <mailto:sip:[email-masked]>'.
>      >
>      >    sip:[email-masked]
>     <mailto:sip:[email-masked]>;user=nikcname
> 
>            sip:[email-masked] <mailto:sip:[email-masked]>
>            sip:[email-masked]
>     <mailto:sip:[email-masked]>;user=nickname
> 
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Hisham Khartabil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:01:16 +1000

> to do so only when the user is in the conference.

Yes, I believe this is what we want for now.

Hisham