Re: [dispatch] Announcing a MUC with RFC4575

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> 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]
>
> Cheers,
> Emil
>
>>
>> Mary.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/13 4:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Somehow "impp-participation" doesn't sound right to me. What you're
>>>>> talking about is a multiparty text conference that is associated with or
>>>>> auxiliary to the main conference. It seems to me that the text
>>>>> conference could be an XMPP MUC room, an IRC channel, an MSRP multiparty
>>>>> chat session, etc. So I would suggest something like "groupchat" (since
>>>>> the primary purpose here is multiparty text chat, not one-to-one IM and
>>>>> presence as they are traditionally understood).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, any of these could be possible, though probably if it was MSRP it
>>>> wouldn't be a separate URI from the main conference URL.
>>>>
>>>> So the mechanism should be work for any of those.
>>>> <purpose>groupchat</purpose> together with the URI scheme to distinguish
>>>> among them should work. (As long as we believe everyone knows that
>>>> "chat" means "type" rather than "talk informally".)
>>>
>>> Maybe something with "text" in the name would be clearer -- "grouptextchat"?
>>>
>>> (Also, I think the bike shed should be orange.)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Lennox
>>> jonathan@vidyo.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dispatch mailing list
>>> dispatch@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
>
> --
> https://jitsi.org