Subject: [Sipping] RE: Comments on draft-ietf-sipping-toip-05.txt - Part 2 of 3

From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 12:08:39 -0400

Hi, Mary:
 
Part 2 of 3 of my comments:

1         Specific Comments

1.1      Section 1: Introduction

Use the term "Real-Time Text" instead of "Conversational Text"  to remove
all technical contradictions.

Rational: As described above.

1.2      Section 4: Definitions

The terms "Text  Gateway," Text Bridge," and "Text Relay" need to be
replaced "Real-Time Text  Gateway," Real-Time Text Bridge," and "Real-Time
Text Relay," respectively. (Alternatively, Gateway, Bridge, and Relay will
also be acceptable.)

Rational: As described above.

1.3      Page 8:

Change the text as shown in RED ink within "..":

R10: Characters must be transmitted soon after entry of each character so
that the maximum delay requirement can be met "so that the performance of
the real-time text communications can be compatible with that of the
conversational audio communications. However, in some situations," an
end-to-end delay time of one second is regarded as good, while a delay of
two seconds is possible to use.

Rational: The conversational audio may demand the end-to-end delay of the
order a few 100s of milliseconds instead of 2 seconds, and the real-time
text needs to be compatible to this requirement.

1.4      Page 9:

Change the text as shown in RED ink within "..":

R14: Where it is possible, loss of real-time text during transport should be
detected and the user should be informed. "Like conversational audio, if
some algorithms are used to recreate the lost real-time text, the users must
be informed what has been recreated."

Rational: Forward error corrections or other algorithms may be used to
recover the real-time text without recovering through retransmissions.

1.5      Page 10:

Change the text as shown in RED ink within "..":

R25: User Agents for ToIP services MUST have alerting methods (e.g., for
incoming sessions) that can be used by deaf and hard of hearing people "and
the main stream normal users who cannot use audio communications because of
safety or other reasons" or provide a range of alternative, but equivalent,
alerting methods that can be selected by all users, regardless of their
abilities.

Rational: A normal user may like to use the real-time text for the safety
reason where the sound of audio communications may jeopardize one's life.

1.6      Page 12:

Use a new Section as follows (shown in RED ink within ".."):

5.2.5.x Quality-of-Service Requirements

"Rxx: Like conversational audio, real-time text SHALL be provided the same
level of Quality-of-Services (QOS) over all networks (e.g., Wire-line and
Wireless LAN, Cellular Network, IP) to meet the real-time application
performances."

Rational: Any 'text" medium is provided the "best-effort" QOS service by all
networks. Unless it is specifically mentioned that the real-time text needs
to be provided the QOS service exactly like that of the conversational
audio, no network will provide QOS.

1.7      Page 18:

Change the text as shown in RED ink within "..":

6.2.5.2 Mobile Interworking

 Mobile wireless (or Cellular) circuit switched connections provide a
digital real-time transport service for voice or data. The access
technologies include GSM, CDMA, TDMA, "Wireless LANs," iDen and various 3G
technologies.

Rational: Wireless LANs are also 3G technologies.

Best regard,

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