Re: MSRP chat: SIP-based nickname negotiation

Hi,

regarding the scope of this work, my understanding was that
SIMPLE was 
going to come up with an MRSP-specific solution for
nicknames. A general 
solution for nicknames would be developed by XCON (SIP might
be to be 
involved as well if SIP extensions were needed) at a later
stage.

Therefore, the only requirement on the MSRP-specific
solution would be 
that it is future-proof so that it does not keep us from
developing a 
more general (while being backwards compatible) one in the
future.

If my understanding of the process is correct, let's get the

MSRP-specific solution finished and let's discuss the more
general one 
somewhere else (e.g., XCON). If, on the other hand, this is
not the 
process we want to follow, I would appreciate if somebody
could clarify 
what our plan is.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

Hisham Khartabil wrote:
> Brain,
> 
> Thats fair enough. Why don't you get with Miguel and
Aki and add some
> text to the draft that makes it a generalised
mechanism. I believe
> Miguel are Aki are more than happy to make you a
co-author of this
> draft.
> 
> Hisham
> 
> On 17/05/07, Brian Rosen <brbrianrosen.net> wrote:
>> Hisham
>>
>> Do you think it would be wise for, let's say, a
presence system which 
>> uses
>> nicknames have a different mechanism for informing
its service of its
>> nickname than it would use for an IM chat?
>>
>> Should the XCON mechanism be different?
>>
>> I don't want to make this into a big deal, but
nicknames are not 
>> peculiar to
>> IM chat.  I don't want an IM chat specific
solution, especially when I 
>> don't
>> think we need a whole lot more than is proposed.  I
think we need SOME 
>> more
>> to make a generalized nickname feasible. 
Persistent nicks within a 
>> domain
>> is one of the big differences.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Hisham Khartabil
[mailto:hisham.khartabilgmail.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:26 AM
>> > To: Brian Rosen
>> > Cc: SIMPLE mailing list
>> > Subject: Re: [Simple] MSRP chat: SIP-based
nickname negotiation
>> >
>> > Brian,
>> >
>> > What we are doing in SIMPLE is specific to IM
chat service (hence the
>> > name of the draft). My opinion is that
whatever is in the draft is
>> > sufficient.
>> >
>> > Hisham
>> >
>> > On 17/05/07, Brian Rosen <brbrianrosen.net> wrote:
>> > > I can see the registration of a
persistent nick as outside the scope
>> > here.
>> > > We could do some standardization, but we
don't have to.
>> > >
>> > > However, we do need to standardize how a
nick user "validates" the 
>> nick
>> > > against the AoR, if that is what the
domain wants to do.
>> > >
>> > > Nicks are not tied to conferences.  They
can be used in other
>> > circumstances.
>> > > The validation operation can't be tied to
a conference server.  I 
>> don't
>> > > really care which IETF work group does
the work.
>> > >
>> > > In my experience, conferences are the
least common use of nicks.
>> > Persistent
>> > > nicks are much more common than temporary
nicks.  If we're going 
>> to bias
>> > > solutions, we ought to bias them towards
persistent, non conference
>> > nicks.
>> > > It's not clear to me that we need such a
bias.
>> > >
>> > > Brian
>> > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: Hisham Khartabil
[mailto:hisham.khartabilgmail.com]
>> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:04
PM
>> > > > To: SIMPLE mailing list
>> > > > Subject: Re: [Simple] MSRP chat:
SIP-based nickname negotiation
>> > > >
>> > > > This discussion is great and helpful
to the XCON folks. What we are
>> > > > doing in SIMPLE is a nickname
service for an adhoc conference. 
>> In my
>> > > > opinion, the solution that Miguel
and Aki are proposing in their 
>> draft
>> > > > is sufficient enough to satisfy the
requirements of enabling a
>> > > > chatroom participant to suggest a
nickname for himself/herself 
>> and get
>> > > > accepted into the chatroom or get
rejected with a reason of 
>> conflict
>> > > > in nicknames. This is on a first
come first server basis.
>> > > >
>> > > > If a domain wants to have the
service where a user can have a 
>> unique
>> > > > nickname across chatrooms, then it
is an implementation issue 
>> behind
>> > > > the scenes and does not require
standardisation.
>> > > >
>> > > > If there are any other requirements,
including nickname uniqueness
>> > > > across domains or the reservation of
a nickname forever, I think 
>> they
>> > > > should go to XCON.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > > Hisham
>> > > >
>> > > >
_______________________________________________
>> > > > Simple mailing list
>> > > > Simpleietf.org
>> > > > https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> Simpleietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
> 

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simpleietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

Re: MSRP chat: SIP-based nickname negotiation

Thread: Re: MSRP chat: SIP-based nickname negotiation