xcon@ietf.org
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar

Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
From: "Brian Rosen"
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:36:59 -0500
What is significant about the difference?
        The user's mental model?
        The protocol?
        The implementation?

I'll agree the mental model is different.  It gets less different when you
have more than one agent and/or coach.  I don't see why the other two are
significantly different.  If you do, could you explain how/why?

I think you just assume sidebars and whispers are, by default, private, and
policy rules would change that.  I think that's really the way most people
prefer anyway.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Burger [mailto:eburger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:57 AM
> To: Brian Rosen; Markus.Isomaki@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: xcon@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> 
> I was going to answer Markus on the "one shot" comment with a...
> 
> NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!
> 
> But it looks like Brian beat me to it.
> 
> There is no such thing as a one shot, real-time multimedia message, unless
> you are talking about asynchronous communication, which is the purview of
> lemonade, not xcon.
> 
> I would like to point out that the "small matter of half-duplex versus
> full-duplex" is not small.  That is the significant difference between
> whisper and sidebar.
> 
> Let's say we do go with the "Allow Policy / Privilege decide if Sidebars
> *or* Whispers are public."  In this case, you would have to decide it
> either
> as "special mixer case with half-duplex in this direction is private" or
> on
> a "special mixer case-by-case" basis.  Neither are good.  Much easier to
> say, "Sidebars are public / private and Whispers are private / public"
> (you
> get to choose).
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:59 AM
> > To: Markus.Isomaki@xxxxxxxxx; oritl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; xcon@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> >
> >
> > I'm still pretty confused about this.
> >
> > Somehow, you think a whisper is a very transient thing.  That's not my
> > experience.  Usually, the coach opens a whisper function and coaches
> > the agent throughout the transaction.  It's not a push to talk, it
> > really is more stateful.
> >
> > Of course, many sidebars are one shot side comments from one
> > participant
> > to another.
> >
> > The thing is, you don't know the user's intent; you don't know if they
> > intend to do a one shot, or intend to leave the channel open, unless
> > you give them two UI functions.  Since that would seem to be equally
> > applicable to whispers and sidebars, I would think we are left with
> > asking if we want "stateless, push to talk" sidebars and
> > whispers or we
> > want to keep things simpler.  Please remember that in all of this, you
> > maintain a single media connection with the mixer, and you
> > always maintain a
> > single full duplex connection with the mixer.  It's just the
> > state of the
> > mixer that changes.  Your UI can make that look like anything
> > it wants to,
> > but you don't need to do any kind of SIP signaling or
> > maintain anything
> > other than whatever signals the start and end of the sidebar/whisper
> >
> > The only reason I know about for any kind of state/context
> > for a sidebar
> > is the one I mentioned - a URI so you can invite someone not
> > in the main
> > conference to the sidebar only.  What other state/context is needed
> > for a sidebar?
> >
> > I think that we do not want to create a special mechanism for
> > a whisper
> > that might be implemented with a page mode IM.  Unless we
> > have a similar
> > mechanism for all media streams, I think its inappropriate to special
> > case that one.
> >
> > Brian
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Markus.Isomaki@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:Markus.Isomaki@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:22 AM
> > > To: br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; oritl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; xcon@xxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> > >
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > I'm not only talking about the user interface, but also
> > considering the
> > > difference between implementing one-shot communication (whisper) vs.
> > > session-type communication (sidebar) within the context of
> > a conference. I
> > > agree that it is possible to use the same technical
> > mechanism to implement
> > > both (i.e. even for one-shot whispers first setup a
> > "sidebar", send the
> > > "media", and tear the sidebar down - with having some
> > parameters telling
> > > that the sidebar in this case is just for one-shot
> > communication), but
> > > currently I don't think that is the most efficient way.
> > >
> > > And true - I expect whisper and sidebars to be different in
> > the UI, in the
> > > same way as SIP MESSAGE vs. MSRP are probably different in most UIs.
> > >
> > > More comments inline.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: xcon-bounces@xxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:xcon-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> > > > ext Brian Rosen
> > > > Sent: 16 November, 2004 02:37
> > > > To: 'Orit Levin'; Isomaki Markus (Nokia-TP/Espoo); xcon@xxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let's go over this slowly, because I'm confused.  Of course,
> > > > that happens
> > > > often enough but...
> > > >
> > > > If a sidebar is public, what does that mean?  Anyone can
> > determine if
> > > > anyone else is in a sidebar, and with whom?  Can you cite
> > > > something like
> > > > it?  That seems very unlikely to me, but I suppose.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, I think this just has to be determined using a bunch
> > of permissions,
> > > e.g. who is able to join the sidebar, and who is able to
> > see that the
> > > sidebar exists. "Public" is probably too simplified here, I think we
> > > should really define the permissions (unless we think that
> > there is some
> > > default that always works).
> > >
> > > > Let's say it is allowed to be a policy issue.  If there
> > is a policy
> > > > mechanism that allows such a thing, why would a whisper be
> > > > different?  That
> > > > is, why would you not allow a policy decision on whisper if
> > > > you allow a
> > > > policy decision on a sidebar?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right. I think it is perfectly valid to have policies
> > (permissions) on
> > > whispers as well, but at least to me the default where
> > no-one can see/know
> > > if others are whispering seems intuitive. I don't think sidebars in
> > > general are as clear.
> > >
> > > > Clearly, a whisper is "explicitly formed", right?  What could
> > > > it possibly
> > > > mean to not be explicitly formed?
> > > >
> > > > Now then there is the "clear communications context".  What
> > > > does that mean?
> > > > That it has a URI?
> > > >
> > > > Let's ask, why you want a URI for a sidebar?  The one thing
> > > > that has been
> > > > mentioned is so you can INVITE a participant to a sidebar who
> > > > is not in the
> > > > main conference.  I suppose that wouldn't make sense for a
> > > > whisper, but are
> > > > there any other reasons for a URI?  Is there actual harm in
> > > > having a URI for
> > > > whisper?  Are there advantages?  Is there anything else you
> > > > think is part of
> > > > a "clear communications context" that applies?
> > > >
> > >
> > > In practice I expect the most effective design to be such that the
> > > conference creation already creates enough state/context
> > for anybody to
> > > send whispers to anybody. This would be good since no additional
> > > "signaling" would then be needed just to setup and tear
> > down this type of
> > > context each time someone wants to send a single "message".
> > On the other
> > > hand I expect sidebar creation to need some signaling steps
> > in order to
> > > setup the state/context for it.
> > >
> > > I have analysed this mainly from messaging/MSRP point of
> > view, where it is
> > > very clear that it is rather easy to keep the state needed
> > for any-to-any
> > > whispering as part of the conf state. It may very well be
> > that the benefit
> > > is not that clear for voice or video.
> > >
> > > > A "one shot IM" is an interesting analogy.  Do you not really
> > > > mean "Push to
> > > > Talk"?  Implementers of PTT have discovered that they
> > > > actually do need a
> > > > "clear communications context" for such things, primarily so
> > > > that resources
> > > > are reserved for when they are needed.  Would that not apply
> > > > to a whisper?
> > > >
> > >
> > > As said, I do believe that at least for messaging/MSRP such
> > resources can
> > > be reserved for the whole duration of the conference
> > without needing to
> > > explicitly reserve them when they are used. In fact I think
> > the need for
> > > state is pretty small since you can carry most of that
> > (e.g. recipients)
> > > within the message (MSRP SEND) itself.
> > >
> > > I haven't seen a PTT system where whispering or sidebars would be
> > > implemented for conferences.
> > >
> > > > Do you think a whisper is always "Push to Talk"?  Is it worth
> > > > creating a
> > > > special mechanism for that, as opposed to creating whatever
> > > > "context" a
> > > > sidebar has and maintaining it until it explicitly closed down?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess this is the main question here. For messaging I
> > think it's very
> > > clear that a specific mechanism works best. For real-time
> > media I'm open
> > > for discussion, but also there I believe that there is a
> > trade-off between
> > > the cost of keeping state just in case vs. the cost of
> > creating & tearing
> > > down state whenever it is really needed.
> > >
> > > > Brain
> > > >
> > >
> > > Markus
> > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: xcon-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:xcon-bounces@xxxxxxxx]
> > > > On Behalf Of
> > > > > Orit Levin
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 4:53 PM
> > > > > To: xcon@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> > > > >
> > > > > I completely agree with Markus on each of his points.
> > > > > I think we should capture this in the xcon framework.
> > > > >
> > > > > Orit.
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: xcon-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:xcon-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Markus.Isomaki@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 1:10 PM
> > > > > > To: Miguel.An.Garcia@xxxxxxxxx; br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Cc: xcon@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think whether sidebars are public or restricted should be
> > > > > > determined in the conference policy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whispers in general are private, although it might be useful
> > > > > > to have the policy to include a privilege to see a whisper
> > > > > > e.g. for a moderator. But this might be just feature creep.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Technically I think sidebars and whispers are very different.
> > > > > > Sidebars should be explicitly formed and have a clear
> > > > > > communication context, while whispering should be always
> > > > > > possible and "stateless". The analogy would be the comparison
> > > > > > between delivery of one-shot IMs vs. establishment and
> > > > > > communication within a messaging session.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Markus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: xcon-bounces@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > > [mailto:xcon-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> > > > > > > ext Miguel Garcia
> > > > > > > Sent: 15 November, 2004 15:56
> > > > > > > To: Brian Rosen
> > > > > > > Cc: xcon@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, this is an important subject, because I recently
> > > > commented (in
> > > > > > > SIPPING) that the conference event package should not show
> > > > > > > participants that are whispering to other participants, due
> > > > > > to privacy
> > > > > > > reasons.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now you mention that sidebars are also private, something I
> > > > > > thought it
> > > > > > > wasn't the case. So, if sidebars are also private by
> > > > nature, they
> > > > > > > shouldn't be visible in the conference event package either.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I still think sidebars are public. Participants can
> > > > freely join a
> > > > > > > sidebar, providing they know how to do it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Miguel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brian Rosen wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think both sidebars and whispers are private.  Only the
> > > > > > > people in them
> > > > > > > > know that they are there.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brian
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > >>From: Miguel Garcia [mailto:Miguel.An.Garcia@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > > >>Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 7:26 AM
> > > > > > > >>To: Brian Rosen
> > > > > > > >>Cc: 'Eric Burger'; xcon@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > >>Subject: Re: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>Brian Rosen wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>I claim that the ONLY difference between a
> > classic sidebar
> > > > > > > and a whisper
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>is
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>that the Coach has a full duplex connection to the
> > > > > > > sidebar, while the
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>Agent
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>only has a half duplex connection.  The Mark is
> > not in the
> > > > > > > sidebar at
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>all.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>As with any sidebar, everyone hears the "main mix".
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>Another difference is that whispers are typically private
> > > > > > in nature,
> > > > > > > >>whereas sidebars are public. If I am whispering
> > to Brian, I
> > > > > > > don't think
> > > > > > > >>the rest of the conference would like to know that I
> > > > am actually
> > > > > > > >>whispering to Brian. If I want to make this information
> > > > > > > public, I would
> > > > > > > >>use a sidebar.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>- Miguel
> 




_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
XCON@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>