Re: [dispatch] Announcing a MUC with RFC4575

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 4/22/13 2:59 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

The "impp" acronym goes back to the IMPP WG and its main output, RFC
2778 and RFC 2779, which talked about one-to-one IM and one-to-one
presence. IMHO groupchat / multiparty text conferencing / whatever you
want to call it is quite a different beast.

Peter