Re: [dispatch] Announcing a MUC with RFC4575

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.

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