Subject: Re: [Simple] The real time text thread

From: Gunnar Hellstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 18:57:20 +0100

Hi Robert,

I think it is excellent that you have come to the conclusion that RFC 4103
shall be specified as the way to achieve interoperability in real-time text.
That is so well in line with all other efforts to establish widespread
interoperability among services including real-time text. And also so
vitally important since also IP based emergency services have decided to
offer RFC 4103 as the transport for real-time text. (RFC 5012 and
draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp ).

Your agreement to promote interop around RFC 4103 is especially valuable in
the accessibility field, where currently real-time text and RFC 4103 has got
its widest application. There we have many strong policy and law based
requirements on us to establish interoperability and a service level equal
to what voice telephone users experience. Such requirements can only be med
by global interoperability based on open standards.

I will check offline with you that you get the clarifications
on characteristics of SIP Message and contacts you want for your other
points.

Thanks,

/Gunnar
___________________________________________-
Gunnar Hellstrom
Omnitor

=========================================================================

[email-masked] skrev 2010-11-12 14:11:

 Hi all,

My name is Robert Hecht and I work for the authority the Swedish post and
telecom agency, PTS.

We procure services for people with disabilities. Among other things we
procure a relay services for text telephony and a relay service for video
telephony (which includes text for short complementary things like names,
phone numbers and other things that you would have to spell with sign
language instead of signing the word.)

I will keep my comments and questions as short as possible:

A.

I understand that part of the discussions is regarding an alternative way of
sending text in real time. It is the standard RFC 4103. It is a standard
that is useful in a number of situations. It is also the standard that will
secure interoperability globally for people with hearing disabilities using
text. It will be clearly stated in the Technical specification (TS) that RFC
4103 is the way (as a shall requirement) to reach global interoperability.
It is no risk for fragmentation with this new technical specification (TS)
in place.

It is a risk for fragmentation without this TS, because in Sweden, Norway,
Denmark, Finland and Germany we already have national services available for
the whole user group in the respective countries. These services use the
solution that is being standardised in the TS. When services are set up
without a reference to this standard it is a major risk that an
interoperable standard will be forgotten. The argument, with all its
limitations, could be that it is interoperable in the Nordic countries. With
the TS in place it will be clearly stated that RFC 4103 shall be included
for interoperability.

B.

When we procure a service it is important that it is companies on the market
that offers the service. It creates a competing situation and the company
that can meet the requirements to the lowest price will be offered to sign
the contract. When we procured the video relay service last time it was no
bids from companies offering RFC 4103. We have to have a service now. In the
future we might see a large number of services based on RFC 4103, but in a
number of countries relay services already offer real time text over IP with
the TS solution today. The goal is to standardise a solution used to secure
transparency. The TS is not creating something new. It is used and in a
number of countries it is used by the national relay service.

A question to all listening to this in Simple: Do you know of any national
relay services in Europe using RFC 4103 for real time text?

I mean services available for all with hearing impairments in a country and
I mean a service with requirements on availability. With availability I mean
for example that the service shall be available for 98 % of the open hours
per month, or similar requirements.

I ask this as a procurer because we would be very interested in visiting
these relay service. Please state the name of the organisation offering the
relay services and if possible the person to contact and contact
information. I am aware of the trial project Reach 112, but now I ask for
launched national relay services only. It would be very helpful for me!

C.

It is true that it requires more overhead thjan the solution for RFC 4103.
This is not a threat to RFC 4103. The service provider setting up a service
must be aware of the overhead and the services are that. The services in the
different countries works fine. The overhead is of no problem for the end
users or companies that do not offer services or products based on the TS.
You should only follow this to-be-standard if you set up your system with
the correct dimentions. In fact the TS states that it sets no requirements
on product vendors, software designers or operators that do not use the TS.
The point is to set up the right dimentions.

A video conversation based on sign language anyway requirers much more band
width than any text dialouge, so it is not any extreme loads.

An important point is that this is ONLY for people with disabilities and the
people that they are in contact with. It will not grow into a new Skype or
anything like that. It is an assistive way of communication for people that
have hearing impairments or are death. It is for instance a national relay
swervice in Germany and a lot of people live there. The service for hearing
impaired people in Germany has a service with no problems due to the
overhead. That is my understanding.

D.

The idea with the TS is to offer mainstream solutions. This can work in any
mobile phone, any computer (Linux, Mac, pc). It is not hindered by any
router that might be part of an ADSL offer from a operator. It works with
the TS all the way to mobile telephones using GSM all the time and for
mobile telephones that sometimes fall down to GSM when the 3G has poor
coverage.

The TS offers text in a way that secures that each character reach the other
end unchanged. It is based on TCP. It is possible that others prefer RFC
4103 and I hear that it is not so common with lost characters anymore. It is
based on RTP. I know it is strong opinions about if RTP or TCP is the right
way to send text character by character. That is not the point here. We
secure interoperability with RFC 4103. Not everyone must use this TS. It is
a free choice. It is a gap filler and the TS confirms that RFC 4103 is the
way to reach interoperability.

Best regards,

Robert Hecht

Robert Hecht
Senior Officer

Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS
Consumer Markets Department
Section for Consumer Issues
Phone: +46 8 678 57 15
Mobile: +46 730 66 57 15
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>
www.pts.se

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing [email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple