[itu-sg16] Instant Messaging in H.323 & Common AlertingProtocol (CAP)

[Paul E. Jones]

Gary,

Your understanding of Annex G is correct.  It could be used for IM-type
services, but it really is different and would be a poor candidate for IM,
in my opinion.  Both modes have their place.

Perhaps more important is this: do we deliver CAP as CAP messages, or do we
deliver the human-readable contents of CAP messages?  Do any H.323 systems
exchange CAP messages?  (We assumed so, but that's now pulled into
question.)  If we are to send CAP messages as CAP messages (i.e., not
"decoded"), then we need something and Annex G is definitely not appropriate
for that, but what is?  An IM system designed to carry "typed" messages or
some other facility in H.323 (e.g., something like H.450.7)? 

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull at windows.microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 4:21 PM
> To: Paul E. Jones; simao.campos at itu.int; Christian.Groves at nteczone.com
> Cc: itu-sg16 at lists.packetizer.com
> Subject: RE: [itu-sg16] Instant Messaging in H.323 & Common
> AlertingProtocol (CAP)
> 
> (2nd attempt to send - previously blocked, apparently due to anti-spam
> reflector settings).
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Thanks for the extra information.  If you will tolerate some additional
> naive questioning, I have a further question about your
> characterization of the H.323 Annex G operation as a one-character-at-
> a-time-as-you-type model.  It seems to me that the decision about when
> to send the characters is a user-interface issue involving only the
> sending terminal, not an interoperability specification issue.  Thus if
> a terminal chose to "batch up" a paragraph of characters before
> choosing to send them, this batch-mode character acquisition process
> could be invisible to the protocol standards that specify how to send
> the characters once the sender is ready to send them.  Presumably the
> sending terminal could also decide to somewhat alter its input before
> sending it as well -- for example by prefixing each paragraph with a
> sender-identifying string or something like that (e.g., "Cindy says:
> LoL, CU later.").  I suppose the result of such a "pseudo-IM" emulation
> might not be ideal (e.g., in terms of the quantity of protocol overhead
> associated with sending a paragraph of characters or the speed at which
> the receiving terminal would obtain the transmitted paragraph), but it
> seems like the basic function can be achieved (without the need for new
> interop specifications customized to the "batch mode" text transfer
> approach). Perhaps, of course, I am missing something.  I am just
> trying to satisfy my own curiosity here.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Gary Sullivan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: itu-sg16-bounces at lists.packetizer.com [mailto:itu-sg16-
> bounces at lists.packetizer.com] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:06 PM
> To: simao.campos at itu.int; Christian.Groves at nteczone.com
> Cc: itu-sg16 at lists.packetizer.com
> Subject: Re: [itu-sg16] Instant Messaging in H.323 & Common
> AlertingProtocol (CAP)
> 
> Simao,
> 
> To support your findings, I asked one of the folks I work with on
> emergency-related activities & SIP and he said it has not been a topic
> of
> discussion in any of his meetings, either.
> 
> Paul
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: simao.campos at itu.int [mailto:simao.campos at itu.int]
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:14 AM
> > To: Christian.Groves at nteczone.com; paulej at packetizer.com
> > Cc: itu-sg16 at lists.packetizer.com
> > Subject: RE: [itu-sg16] Instant Messaging in H.323 & Common Alerting
> > Protocol (CAP)
> >
> > All,
> >
> > for your info, we have invited Mr Eliot Christian from the US
> > Geological Service to make a presentation on CAP on Thu or Fri during
> > the first week of SG 16. He'll be arriving on Thu lunch time from the
> > US so I guess Friday would be a convenient day.
> >
> > He was very active in its development and is active in its promotion
> > and advocacy. It'll be a good opportunity for us to become more
> > familiar with the standard.
> >
> > Re CAP in the IETF, the only relevat thing I found was not really
> IETF
> > but XMPP, http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0127.html
> >
> > I found http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-baker-alert-system-
> > 00.txt (International Alert System) which is expired and still refers
> > to an outdated version of CAP.
> >
> > So probably an answer to Christian is "not yet"...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Simão
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: itu-sg16-bounces at lists.packetizer.com [mailto:itu-sg16-
> > bounces at lists.packetizer.com] On Behalf Of Christian Groves
> > Sent: 24 May 2007 02:50
> > To: Paul E. Jones
> > Cc: itu-sg16 at lists.packetizer.com
> > Subject: Re: [itu-sg16] Instant Messaging in H.323 & Common Alerting
> > Protocol (CAP)
> >
> > G'Day Paul,
> >
> > Please my comments below CNG.
> >
> > As an aside, do you know if there's any work in the IETF around CAP?
> >
> > Regards, Christian
> >
> > ...
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>