Another appoach would be to use XMPP and/or SIMPLE directly (as a separate session). You would bootstrap the XMPP session from the H.323 session by each side providing the URI for the IM. There are a number of clients out there that use SIP for voice/video session setup but XMPP for IM. The same could be done with H.323. ________________________________ From: itu-sg16-bounces@lists.packetizer.com [mailto:itu-sg16-bounces@lists.packetizer.com] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 14:48 To: 'Even, Roni'; 'Gary Sullivan'; itu-sg16@lists.packetizer.com Subject: Re: [itu-sg16] Instant Messaging in H.323 & Common AlertingProtocol(CAP) Roni, I believe there is an interest in the market. I've been asked many times over the years, we've seen many proposals, etc., but inevitably somebody kills every proposal before we are able to make any real progress. I will argue that, yes, we need IM within H.323. Does it need to interoperate with SIMPLE or XMPP? Not directly: that's what an SBC can handle for us, just as it does everything else. Do we want to make it as interoperable as possible? No objections: we're not consenting text at this meeting and we have time to work out issues. The way I view it, we need something. I've seen people doing things ranging from using the user-data field to nonStandardData field, to H.460.x-style extensions. I'd prefer to start with something and then we solicit contributions and comments against it. I really want forward progress on this long-standing open work item. Paul From: Even, Roni [mailto:roni.even@polycom.co.il] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:56 PM To: Paul E. Jones; Gary Sullivan; itu-sg16@lists.packetizer.com Subject: RE: [itu-sg16] Instant Messaging in H.323 & Common AlertingProtocol(CAP) Paul, I understand the request for emergency message protocol but I am wondering if it will help to have it as part of a general H.323 IM protocol or as a standalone solution. My concern is that we have not succeeded in defining a general IM protocol for H.323 was probably because of lack of real market requirements and trying to define it now may cause us to define an IM solution which is not optimal ( and difficult to interact with XMPP and SIMPLE based IM solutions) while the only real requirement is for the emergency message protocol. Roni Even ________________________________ From: itu-sg16-bounces@lists.packetizer.com [mailto:itu-sg16-bounces@lists.packetizer.com] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:36 PM To: 'Gary Sullivan'; itu-sg16@lists.packetizer.com Subject: Re: [itu-sg16] Instant Messaging in H.323 & Common AlertingProtocol(CAP) Gary, T.134 is an application protocol entity for sending text messages within the context of a T.120 conference. So, it's not usable within H.323. T.140 is a character presentation format and is used by H.323 Annex G for delivering real-time text. However, real-time text and Instant Message are not the same (so I'm getting closer to answering your question). V.18 is a protocol for sending text over a PSTN circuit using modulated signals (modem), so that's far away from what we're doing in H.323 (or IP networks in general). So what is the difference between H.323 Annex G (real-time text) and Instant Messaging? The difference is how messages are composed, transmitted, and delivered. With H.323 Annex G, characters are collected and transmitted as they are entered by the user and then displayed on the remote device "character at a time" (or as close to that as possible). With Instant Messaging (IM), entire sentences or paragraphs are entered and then transmitted as a single message block. The latter is what we see with MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, Sametime, Jabber / XMPP / Google Talk, AIM, and other similar clients. The desire that has been expressed since at least 2000 is to support some form of IM in H.323. We've had several proposals and nothing has moved forward beyond the initial presentation (or at most the second meeting). I never understood why, but now we have a situation where we're being asked to deliver what is essentially a "text message". If we have an IM protocol in place, it would become trivial to deliver that capability. Thus, I'd like to see hastened forward progress on the IM work we've been debating for so many years. I hope that helps. Paul From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:14 PM To: Paul E. Jones; itu-sg16@lists.packetizer.com Subject: RE: [itu-sg16] Instant Messaging in H.323 & Common Alerting Protocol(CAP) Paul et al, What is the difference between "IM" and "text chat"? And how do these efforts relate to the following?: T.134 - Text chat in data conferencing T.140 - Protocol for multimedia application text conversation V.18 - Text telephony Best Regards, Gary Sullivan ________________________________ From: itu-sg16-bounces@lists.packetizer.com [mailto:itu-sg16-bounces@lists.packetizer.com] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:23 PM To: itu-sg16@lists.packetizer.com Subject: [itu-sg16] Instant Messaging in H.323 & Common Alerting Protocol(CAP) Folks, We have debated the introduction of a method of sending IMs within H.323 for years. It's unfortunate, especially considering how the H.323 infrastructure so easily lends itself to such functionality. There was a renewed hope with some documents introduced during the Shenzhen meeting that suggested a means of sending IM within the context of a call, as well as outside the context of a call. One of the other matters we were asked to consider within the context of H.323 and H.248 is the transmission of emergency messages using a format called the "Common Alerting Protocol". During the Shenzhen meeting, we sent a liaison to SG17 urging them to consider the creation of an ASN.1 specification that would more readily transport within H.323 networks. I can report that, not only did they do that, it has been put forward for consent already. The standard will be X.1303. So, the next step is to define procedures for transporting X.1303 (CAP) messages within H.323. Initially, I considered creating an H.460.x extension, but then I thought that a better solution might be to use something like H.450.7 (Message Waiting Indicator). But, as I thought about this, perhaps the best way is to marry this with the Instant Messaging proposals we've seen before. If we were to standardize the ability to send instant messages within H.323, both within and outside the context of a call, then it would be possible to send X.1303 messages as an "instant message". This does introduce a new requirement, though, in that we ought to "tag" the type of message so that it is properly treated. Instant Messages might appear unprocessed on the user's screen, whereas X.1303 messages must be decoded and formatted for human readability. So, I would like to draft a proposal for this upcoming SG16 meeting to do precisely what I said: let's move forward on the work of sending IM messages within H.323, adding a tag that indicates the type of message. We can also utilize the call priority procedures in H.460.4 in order to ensure that an emergency CAP message gets higher priority through the network. Does this sound reasonable and acceptable? Do others have other proposals? If it is acceptable, then I have a question of procedure. The proposals for instant messaging were not accepted as new work items for Q2, though they were not rejected: the request was for further progress. Unfortunately, the contributor is not a member of the ITU, which leaves us in a difficult situation. As a possible means forward somebody might volunteer to submit these documents as formal contributions to this SG16 meeting under their company's name. Is that agreeable and are there any volunteers? Do you have another idea for how we can support X.1303 (CAP)? Thanks, Paul