Subject: RE: [Simple] Multiparty IM

From: "Robert Osborne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 08:57:31 -0800

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 7:47 AM
>To: Robert Osborne; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Simple] Multiparty IM
>
>
>At 11:11 24/01/2001 -0800, Robert Osborne wrote:
>>ust going through the draft 
>><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-impp-im-0
>0.txt>draft-rosenberg-impp-im-00.txt, 
>>and started to think about how multiparty IM might work. By 
>this I mean 
>>the common scenario, that most IM clients support, of A 
>talking to B, and 
>>A or B inviting C into the session.
>>
>>Looking through the draft this could be solved, by A sending 
>a message to 
>>each participant. However B will not know that C has joined 
>the session, 
>>and C will not know about B. Therefore any messages sent by 
>them will only 
>>be sent to A.
>>
>>Another problem is that if B wishes to leave an IM session, 
>there is no 
>>way for him/her to notify the other participants of the 
>session. Therefore 
>>B could continue to receive messages, without wanting to.
>>
>>Has anyone looked at this problem, and come up with a simple 
>and effective 
>>solution?
>>
>
>The IRC way is to give the session concept separate existence, 
>and have all 
>messages sent to the session instead of the participants.
>This is the essence of a "channel".
>

I agree with you that there needs to be an independent session
concept. With this session it would be possible to invite people,
leave, and notify existing members of new members joining.

In the initial implementation of RVP, we believed you could 
determine the members of a session by simply using some information
included within the headers of an IM. Unfortunately we quickly
discovered that due to error conditions, it was very easy to get
the participant list out of step, and therefore had to resort to
an Invite, Ack, Join, Leave command flow.

I am hoping that someone has come up with a better solution, that
fits within the current SIP IM proposal of just using a MESSAGE
to send an IM. Is there something I am missing that allows for
good participant management using just this method?

>Note: The IMPP requirements and CPIM documents do not have the 
>concept of 
>"session".

Is this something that will be changed, or will the CPIM assume
that there will be no multi-party IM?

Rob O

>
>--
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
>+47 41 44 29 94
>Personal email: [email-masked]
>
>

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:12:04 -0500

Howdy,

> that there will be no multi-party IM?

The consensus of the IMPP working group has been to leave multi-party 
IM outside the scope of the common core (CPIM).

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Days used to be longer."
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------