Re: [dispatch] Announcing a MUC with RFC4575

[Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>]

There it is then:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-grouptextchat-purpose

Cheers,
Emil

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-ivov-grouptextchat-purpose-00.txt
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:09:01 -0700
From: [e-mail]
To: Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>


A new version of I-D, draft-ivov-grouptextchat-purpose-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Emil Ivov and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-ivov-grouptextchat-purpose
Revision:	 00
Title:		 A Group Text Chat Purpose for Conference and Service URIs in
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Conference State
Creation date:	 2013-04-24
Group:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 5
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ivov-grouptextchat-purpose-00.txt
Status:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ivov-grouptextchat-purpose
Htmlized:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-grouptextchat-purpose-00


Abstract:
   This document defines and registers a value of "grouptextchat"
   ("Group Text Chat") value for the URI <purpose> element of SIP's
   Conference Event Package [RFC4575].





The IETF Secretariat

On 23.04.13, 19:57, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 4/23/13 9:36 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hey Mary,
>>>
>>> On 23.04.13, 16:50, Mary Barnes wrote:
>>>> This would also be something useful for the XCON chat, which
>>>> is defined in draft-boulton-xcon-session-chat (we will shortly
>>>> be updating this and posting for discussion on this mailing
>>>> list).  I think "grouptextchat" would work, although I don't
>>>> find it particularly readable, but I don't think abbreviating
>>>> is useful, so I don't have another suggestion.
>>>
>>> I suppose I am once again missing something so I'd better ask :)
>>>
>>> Are you saying that you would find a draft that defines the
>>> value helpful for draft-boulton-xcon-session-chat or are you
>>> planning on adding the definition in the draft itself?
>>>
>>> The former could be quicker I suppose and I'd be happy to write
>>> the document, but the latter also works for me.
>> [MB] I agree with you.  I think we can write a simple doc to
>> define this and it can be referenced by these other docs as
>> necessary (since it isn't unique to any of these chat
>> applications). [/MB]
> 
> +1
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 

-- 
https://jitsi.org