Subject: Re: [salud] draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns: silent and visual

From: Brett Tate <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 05:27:50 -0700

> IMO duration:none is a hack, and I would prefer to see 
> something more explicit. And I don't see any of the 
> existing proposed alert-categories being well suited 
> for describing this. So I think this will require a new 
> category. I'm not convinced "visual" is it. How about 
> simply urn:alert:none?

The "urn:alert:none" option sounds okay to me; however it might be ambiguous concerning if only applies to "audible" alerts.

Thus, it might be good to have something like "urn:alert:silent" instead of the "none" or as a related alternative.

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:30:03 -0400

On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 09:56 -0700, Brett Tate wrote:
> Some services such as RFC 5373's automatic answer may be interested in
> silent or visual alerting.
> 
> If it isn't too late (and topic not already raised/rejected), is there
> any interest in discussing such things within
> draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns?
> 
> The following are a couple of potential options without requiring the
> service indication.
> 
> An option for silent could be "urn:alert:duration:none".
> 
> An option for visual (without audio) could be
> "urn:alert:visual:noaudio" although it might be better to split into 2
> urn values.

The concept is interesting, but beware of confusing the intention with
the implementation.  What you're really talking about is
url:alert:priority:reallyreallylow or url:alert:priority:none.  (If the
user is deaf, "visual" alerting is *normal*.)

It could be argued that "reallyreallylow" is sufficiently covered by
urn:alert:priority:low.

urn:alert:priority:none is much more interesting, because it suggests
that the UA could engage in a dialog without notifying the user.  I
could easily imagine that I would configure my UA so that if the
requested alerting was "none", the UA would alert me anyway.

Dale

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:10:36 -0400

> user is deaf, "visual" alerting is *normal*.)

Its unclear to me exactly what semantic is desired here. Maybe there is 
more than one. For instance, "silent" may be sufficient - visual 
alerting may be fine in some cases, because it is less likely to bother 
others. But that may not always be true. (If you are displaying your 
screen on a projector in a meeting, visual alerting could still be a 
bother.)

> requested alerting was "none", the UA would alert me anyway.

Note that no alerting doesn't imply auto answer. RFC 5373 provides a 
mechanism for requesting auto-answer. It was intentionally separated 
from alerting issues.

So specifying both answer-mode:auto and alert none might bug your room. 
There are lots of warnings in that draft about being careful about that.

Specifying alert "none" without auto-answer would be problematic. You 
would still need to answer the call, but wouldn't know you should.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Dale
>
> _______________________________________________
> salud mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud
>