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

Gunnar Hellström gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se
Tue May 22 18:42:46 EDT 2007


What we called ”text chat” in T.120 is nowadays called “real-time text”. 

It is text used mainly for conversation. Sent time-sampled in e.g. 300 ms
sample intervals, so that the users get a good feeling of contact.

 

In ITU, it is supported by the T.134 application in the T.120 family,

By H.323 Annex G

And by H.248.2

 

It is only defined for usage during a session.

 

IM is traditionally not sent until the user makes a send request. A RETURN
or ckicking a send button. 

I do not see any favour of that tradition compared to real-time text during
sessions.

So, for use during sessions, I think we are done.

 

There are IM protocols that can be used outside a session. That may be
handy.

 

Gunnar

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Gunnar Hellström

Omnitor

 <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se> gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se

Tel: +46708204288

 <http://www.omnitor.se> www.omnitor.se

  _____  

From: itu-sg16-bounces at lists.packetizer.com
[mailto:itu-sg16-bounces at lists.packetizer.com] On Behalf Of Gary Sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:14 PM
To: Paul E. Jones; itu-sg16 at lists.packetizer.com
Subject: Re: [itu-sg16] Instant Messaging in H.323 & Common
AlertingProtocol(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 at lists.packetizer.com
[mailto:itu-sg16-bounces at lists.packetizer.com] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:23 PM
To: itu-sg16 at 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

 



__________ NOD32 2283 (20070521) Information __________

Detta meddelande är genomsökt av NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.nod32.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20070523/e28b0a2b/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the sg16-avd mailing list