Re: [dispatch] Announcing a MUC with RFC4575

[Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>]

On 22.04.13, 22:44, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 4/21/13 2:43 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I have been looking at RFC4575 and wondering what the best way would be
>> for a mixer to announce that a conference has an associated chatroom
>> (e.g. an XMPP MUC) available at a certain address. This would allow UAs
>> that support MUCs can join there too.
>>
>> From what I see the most reasonable way to do this would be a
>> <conf-uri>, like this for example:
>>
>> <conf-uris>
>>   <entry>
>>    <uri>sip:[e-mail]</uri>
>>    <display-text>TTI Bridge</display-text>
>>    <purpose>participation</purpose>
>>   </entry>
>>   <entry>
>>    <uri>xmpp:[e-mail]</uri>
>>    <display-text>Multi-User Chat 545</display-text>
>>    <purpose>impp-participation</purpose>
>>   </entry>
>> </conf-uris>
>>
>> Another option would be to use the same <entry> but place it ina a
>> <service-uris> element instead:
>>
>> <service-uris>
>>   <entry>
>>    <uri>http://sharepoint/salesgroup/</uri>
>>    <purpose>web-page</purpose>
>>   </entry>
>>   <entry>
>>    <uri>xmpp:[e-mail]</uri>
>>    <display-text>Multi-User Chat 545</display-text>
>>    <purpose>impp-participation</purpose>
>>   </entry>
>> </service-uris>
>>
>> Does any of the above make sense? In case no other mechanism allows for
>> the same thing in a simpler way, then could we maybe put one of the two
>> on paper?
> 
> Somehow "impp-participation" doesn't sound right to me.

That was just a stab really. I don't really have a preference for the
name ... unless it would mean less overhead: if for example we could
have just reused the "impp" purpose from draft-saintandre-impp-call-info
then that would have been great. However, as you point out, it currently
only applies to Call-Info and we would need another draft that looks
pretty much the same way (like Rifaat suggested).

> 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.

Correct.

> 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).

Well, it seems to me that a URI with an "impp" purpose that has a 1-to-1
relation with a conference can only be a group chat and it would also
give us some uniformity in the naming conventions. But again, I don't
really mind what the exact name would be as long as a name is defined.

Cheers,
Emil
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 

-- 
https://jitsi.org