Subject: [Sipping] RE: Comments on draft-ietf-sipping-toip-05.txt - Part 1 of 3

From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 12:02:32 -0400

Hi, Mary:
 
I have divided my comments into 3 parts as my word document did not go
through the mailing list.
 
Comments - Part 1 of 3:

1         General Comments 

1.1      Real-Time Text vs. Text

The draft must use "Real-Time Text" or "RT Text" consistently throughout the
document.

Rational: A caller can use specify audio, video, and text as the media in
the call setup for multimedia call. In this case, "text" is considered as
the non-real-time data application. Moreover, "text" itself has been used to
represent as the non-real-time data application since the inception of the
computer communications. So, unless "RT Text" is used, no one will consider
that this real-time conversational "Text."

All authors of this draft have decided to use the term "Real-Time Text" or
"RT Text" consistently, and have gone out in all IETF WGs so that all WGs
use the same term in all drafts. Since then, we have been consistently
started to do the same, as recently, we did the same in the ENUM, MMUSIC,
AVT, and other WGs.

Let us read a paragraph in Page 7 of this draft written as follows:

"In many of the above examples, text may accompany speech. The text could be
displayed side by side, or in a manner similar to subtitling in broadcasting
environments, or in any other suitable manner. This could occur with users
who are hard of hearing and also for mixed media calls with both hearing and
deaf people participating in the call."

The above description clearly shows how confusing it reads to a reader. Does
the word "Text" used in the above paragraph cannot be interpreted as
"Non-Real-Time Text?"

What is the use of creation of unnecessary confusions? What is the problem
in using the term "real-time Text" or "RT Text?"

1.2      Real-Time Text vs. Interactive Text

"Interactive Text" is another confusing term has been used for creation of
technical confusions. 

Rational: For example, "interactive" communications has been used as the
communications between the human user and the server, and the response time
is expected to be less than 2 seconds so that the productivity of the users
does not fall down when they use the server (computer) interactively for
their tasks. This "interactive" communication has been the sending/receiving
of the "non-real-time data."

The question is this: Why do we use this term "interactive data" to
represent "real-time text" just because casually the term used "interactive
text" in reference [23] which is nothing to do with the things that we are
up to in this draft?

Interestingly, the description in the draft for using the term "interactive
text" becomes so obscure to read, the same term has been used with another
qualifier as follows: "Real-Time, Conversation Text" or
"Real-Time/Conversational Text" in the draft. Why? Is this just to provide
an obscure reference [23]? If reference [23] needs to be used, why do we not
use the term "Real-Time Text (e.g., conversational text) reference [23]
....) without using the term "conversational text" in the main draft
directly?

Best regards,

Radhika

  _____  

From: Roy, Radhika R.
Sent: Sat 7/1/2006 7:43 PM
To: Mary Barnes
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-sipping-toip-05.txt - Part 1 of 2

Hi, Mary:
 
As indicated, I am enclosing my comments in the enclosed paper.
 
I appreciate your lead in this respect.
 
Best regards,
Radhika

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP