Network Working Group G. Hellstrom
Internet-Draft Omnitor
Intended status: Best Current N. Williams
Practice Gallaudet University
Expires: August 1, 2008 A. van Wijk
Realtimetext.org
G. Vanderheiden
Trace R&D Center, University
of Wisconsin-Madison
January 29, 2008
Presentation of Text Conversation in realtime and en-bloc form
draft-hellstrom-textpreview-05
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This specification defines methods for presentation of a text
conversation with focus on the real-time features. The aim is to
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
give the participants in a conversation a good opportunity to
perceive the real-time flow of the conversation and also provide a
display of the history of the conversation that makes it easy to
read. Both two-party and multi-party situations are defined.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Real-time preview presentation method . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Entries in creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Completion of local entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Completion of preview entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. Order of entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5. Scrolling and buffering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.6. Moving between different states . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.7. En bloc transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.8. Auto-real-time for Emergency calls and Textphone calls . . 8
4.9. Reasons to finish an entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.9.1. Interoperability considerations with PSTN . . . . . . 9
4.10. Erasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.11. Presentation of detected errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.12. Display formatting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Transport and presentation considerations . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Time sampling and smooth display . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. RTP based transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. MSRP and message chunk based transport . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Hybrid RTP / Message transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.5. Identification of entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Multi-party sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Presence indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Alerting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
1. Introduction
This is a specification of methods for presentation of a real-time
text conversation. The aim is to give the participants in a
conversation a good opportunity to perceive the real-time flow of the
conversation and also provide a display of the history of the
conversation that makes it easy to follow the flow. One reason to
specify the presentation method is to be able to give participants a
synchronized view of the conversation even if they use different
presentation characteristics. The methods are intended for use in a
protocol environment where text can be transmitted in real-time or in
fragments of messages. Both two-party situations and multi-party
session presentations are specified. The specification is mainly on
the presentation level, relatively independent of the transport
layer. It has though some requirements on the lower layers, as well
as some characteristics of the lower layers cause slightly different
user experience in the presentation.
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
An example of a two-party view is shown in Figure 1.
_________________________________________________
| |^|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| [Anne] Hi, Anne here. | |
| | |
| [Eve] Hi, this is Eve, calling from Paris. | |
| I thought you should be here. | |
| | |
| [Anne] I am coming on Thursday, | |
| my performance is not until Friday | |
| morning. | |
| [Anne] Can we meet on Thursday evening? | |
| | |
| [Eve] Yes, definitely. How about 7pm. | |
| at the entrance of the restaurant | |
| Le Lion Blanc? | |
| [Eve] we can have dinner and then take a | |
| walk |_|
| <Eve-typing> But I need to be back at the |_|
| hotel by 11 because I have t |v|
|_____________________________________________|_|
| OK, no prob |
| |
|_______________________________________________|
Figure 1: Two-party call with real-time preview.
Figure 1: The text is here displayed in a traditional chat view, with
labelled entries from each participant ordered in a list with newest
entry last. Older entries are scrolled up, out of the screen area
when there is no room for them.
Real-time text arriving from other participants is displayed in
'preview areas' within the scrolling 'history' window. They are
formatted to look different and are presented at the bottom of the
history window until they are completed. When completed they move up
in the history window and added to the history record. The text
being entered by the local participant appears in a separate entry
field that is preferably just below the history field (to minimize
eye movements when reading and typing).
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [5].
3. Scope
This specification describes methods for presenting a text
conversation so that the gradual entry of text is made visible to the
users. One method has text flowing in real-time in a way that is
similar to common text chat, but with the possibility to follow
entries while they are created in a real-time preview area. The
method may be applied on any text conversation transport method that
transmits text character by character, time-sampled, word by word, or
any other method based on small chunks. The methods cover both two-
party and multi-party situations.
4. Real-time preview presentation method
The presentation method described here is intended to give a
convenient view of a text conversation between two or more
participants in a session. It is intended to be compatible with the
requirements of ITU-T T.140 [1], and to look familiar for text chat
users and be feasible to implement in terminals with small displays.
The basic concept however could be implemented in other text
technologies as well and displayed in different ways. ITU-T T.140
[1], Appendix I, describes a traditional chat view and a two-column
view. The display formats shall be implemented so that terminals in
a session can implement different display views meeting the
requirements of T.140 [1] and giving the users a synchronized view of
the flow of the conversation.
4.1. Entries in creation
Entries in creation SHALL be displayed in a real-time preview area,
one for each participant who has entries in creation. The real-time
preview areas MAY be placed under the list of completed entries as
shown in Figure 1 and 2, or at any other suitable place in the user
interface. If video from the participants is also displayed, then it
MAY be suitable to display the real-time preview areas under the
video image of the participant. The real-time text MAY also be
displayed in a manner more closely associated with earlier exchanged
text entries by the same participant (e.g. text from each participant
goes in its own column).
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
If real-time previews from other participants are placed under the
list of completed entries as in Figure 1 and 2, the text being
entered by the local participant SHOULD be placed at the bottom in
its own text entry field. This is recommended for a number of
reasons. First, this is the only "editable" text on the screen. It
also facilitates an optional input behavior where the local user may
sometimes be holding their text back until it is completed while
normally transmission occurs in real-time. Having the user input
area be in a separate field MAY also be useful when scrolling the
output field so that the input field always stays in view even as the
history and text previews are scrolled out of view to read older
text.
For ease of reading different entries, it is RECOMMENDED that all
entries be placed close together in the display area.
For text input technologies requiring a number of keystrokes before
the character or characters are finally decided, no characters shall
be submitted to communication until they are decided from this input
preparation process. This is for example valid for input of some
Asian languages, and for some textentry methods from number keypads.
During entry, the following actions MAY be requested:
o Alert. Requests alerting of the remote participant.
o Erase last character. Erases the last ( non-erased) character in
the entry. (See Section 4.10)
4.2. Completion of local entry
Text from the local participant SHALL be entered in the local user
input field, until an end-of-entry event occurs. The end-of-entry
event may be triggered by a send button, a RETURN, or when another
condition selectable by the local user to "post what I have so far"
is met ( such as a pause in typing, a delimiting character such as a
period, or a turn-taking token).
When an end-of-entry event occurs, if the entry does not end with a
newline as defined by the device, the sending system SHALL append
one. The completed entry SHALL be moved to the history display area.
If the protocol used defines an end-of-message indicator, it SHALL
also be issued.
4.3. Completion of preview entry
Text from the remote participants SHALL be entered in the preview
area until an end-of entry event occurs. The end-of-entry is
identified by any variant of a NEW LINE coded in the character set
used, or an end of message indicator if there is a specific coding of
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
that event. When an end-of-entry event occurs, the completed entry
SHALL be moved to the history display area.
4.4. Order of entries
The order of displayed entries in the display area SHALL be the
timing order when the entries were "posted" to the display from the
preview area. That is, when the new line or end-of-message indicator
is received.
4.5. Scrolling and buffering
When there are entries in the display area that are pushed (scrolled)
out of the view by new text coming in, it SHOULD be possible to
scroll back to them within a practical limit. When the display area
is scrolled, it SHALL stay in that scrolled position until scrolling
is changed again or (at the user's option) when a new entry is
received. When scrolled to the bottom, the display area SHALL auto-
scroll as needed to show new entries. When the display arrangement
is made with the preview field placed just under the history field as
in Figure1 and 2, the preview field and the history field SHOULD
scroll together as one display area.
The input field of the local participant SHOULD always be visible
regardless of the scroll position of the history field.
4.6. Moving between different states
Entries can be either "real-time (preview)" or "historical" and they
can be either "displayed" or "hidden". When real-time text is
received it SHALL BE classified as a real-time entry until an end-of-
entry indicator is received. Real-time entries SHOULD be displayed
in the real-time preview field. Once an end-of-entry indicator is
received, the entry SHALL become historical and SHOULD be move into
the history display field. Its position within the history SHALL be
determined by the time that its end-of-entry indicator was received.
The local user may select to hide either the entries while they are
real-time (previews) or when they are historical. Hiding entries
when they are in real-time state may be done to avoid distraction for
the local participant. The feature to hide the entries while in
real-time state SHOULD provide some alert when an end-of-entry
indicator is received as well as when real-time text stops coming in
for a period of time. (The alert due to pause in incoming text is
important because some real-time text users are not accustomed to
sending end-of-entry indications(e.g. RETURNs) or may use a text
based end-of-entry indication (such as GA).
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
An entry (or category of entries) can be placed in a hidden state by
user command to hide it (them). (e.g. Hide all but "Mary" to make it
easier to see her thread)
The default SHALL be that both real-time and history are not hidden.
4.7. En bloc transmission
It SHOULD be possible for the participants to hold their text and not
have it sent to the other participants until after the end-of-message
event occurs. This enables users who do not want their message to be
viewed by other participants until they have verified it. This also
facilitates editing since random editing can be done on the text
block before it is sent. This also allows a block of text to be
pasted into the text entry area and then edited before it is sent.
This could be new text or a previous text entry that the user would
like to resend with edits. The en bloc method SHALL NOT be the only
method for sending. A 'real-time / block send' switch SHOULD be
located near the local user's text entry field Real-time SHALL be the
default method for sending but a user preference setting MAY change
the default to en bloc.
4.8. Auto-real-time for Emergency calls and Textphone calls
When it is detected that the session is used for emergency purposes,
the text transmission SHALL be switched to real-time regardless of
its previous setting.
When it is detected that the session is used for a connection with a
PSTN textphone through a gateway, the text transmission SHOULD be
switched to real-time regardless of its previous setting. The user
SHOULD be given an indication on the situation that also may call for
application of turn-taking habits and limitations in simultaneity of
voice and text communication.
The user SHALL still be provided with a possibility to switch to en
bloc sending after the session is established.
4.9. Reasons to finish an entry
The default end-of-entry action SHOULD be a new line request from the
user.
A specific send button MAY also be used.
Users with dominating experience from real-time text communication in
PSTN may have a habit of not ending entries with a new line. There
will be a risk that entries are left in real-time mode
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
unintentionally not displayed and not read if the receiving end has
hidden real-time display. Some actions are needed in order to avoid
this risk.
If an entry is left in real-time mode without any input activity for
a long period (e.g. 10 seconds), the local participant should be
given an indication that there is an unfinished entry in the input
field, and given a hint to complete it. Optionally, e.g. when using
a voice-to-text application for generating text, the application
SHOULD create the end-of-entry.
A period (".") followed by a short inactivity MAY also be configured
to be used as an end-of-entry indication.
4.9.1. Interoperability considerations with PSTN
For PSTN text gateways having user input from PSTN text telephones,
the following sequences SHOULD be included among those causing an
entry to be finished. These terminations would usually be done by
the PSTN gateway in its transmission towards the IP side:
o Letters "GA" or "GASK" or "SKSK" followed by short inactivity
(e.g. 3 seconds), for interaction with TTY users.
o Character "+" or "x" followed by short inactivity (e.g. 3
seconds), for European textphone users.
o Characters "*" or "KOM" followed by short inactivity (e.g. 3
seconds), for Northern Europe textphone users.
White spaces (space bar, New line, CR, and LF) after those characters
SHALL be accepted and included in the finished entry. (Some users do
type a space character after the turn-taking indicator and some
textphones will send return after the turn-taking symbol).
4.10. Erasure
Erasure SHALL only be done from the last character entered per
participant. Erasure SHALL NOT be possible once entries have been
moved into the history field.
Transmitted characters that take no position on the display (e.g.
Bell or Alert in Session) SHALL not take any specific erasing action,
but be regarded to be erased simultaneously with the succeeding
character.
Characters that are composed by multiple keystrokes SHALL be erased
by one erasing action.
New lines inserted by automatic line break and word wrap actions
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
purely for display formatting purposes by the local system SHALL not
require any specific erasing action.
When erasing, the erasing action MUST be performed strictly according
to the rules above, in order to maintain a synchronized view of the
conversation for the participants, even if conversation participants
use different display formats, such as the two-panel mode described
in ITU-T T.140 1 [1] and the real-time preview mode described here.
4.11. Presentation of detected errors
If a transmission error is detected and it is likely that it has
resulted in loss of text, a character SHALL be inserted in the text
for display at that point. The character should be the "Replacement
character", a question mark within a rhombus. For cases when this
character cannot be represented on the display, the replacement
character SHOULD be presented as an apostrophe (" ' ") .
The same applies for incoming text that cannot be presented on the
local terminal because of limitations in available fonts.
4.12. Display formatting
The display SHALL be word-wrapped within the limits of the window.
The labels on the entries SHOULD display the user name of the
participant. If this information is not available, labels indicating
"Received" and "Transmitted" or other suitable names for the
participants SHOULD be used.
The following operations SHOULD be possible to do:
o Select font size
o Select text colour and background colour for each participant.
o Set window size
o Select between real-time and en-bloc modes.
The real-time preview display area MAY follow the same display
formatting regarding font size, colours etc as the display area or
MAY be different.
Each real-time preview area MAY have a fixed or adjustable size. It
MAY also have no specific scrolling features or its own scrolling
mechanism..
5. Transport and presentation considerations
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
5.1. Time sampling and smooth display
It is RECOMMENDED that characters be buffered and transmitted in 300
ms intervals on the transport level. It is permissible to buffer
characters for transmission in up to 500 ms intervals. Display of
received chunks of text SHOULD be done one character at a time spread
over the transmission interval so that adding a chunk of text to the
real-time preview window approximately covers the transmission
interval to give a smoother flow.
The presentation method MAY be used with transport methods for real-
time text and for all text message methods where it is possible to
use timer based transmission to transmit fragments of message
entries.
5.2. RTP based transport
The method MAY be applied on various text transmission technologies.
It is designed in order to be usable for real-time text conversation
with coding and presentation according to ITU-T T.140 including its
amendment 1 [1], and IETF RTP [3] transport with packetization as
defined in RFC 4103 [2]. The methods for applying this in a multi-
party situation is described in IETF Text media handling in RTP based
real-time and message conferences draft-hellstrom-text-conference
[6].
5.3. MSRP and message chunk based transport
Another environment where the real-time text with preview
presentation is feasible, is with the messaging protocol IETF MSRP
[4], where the message fragment concept MAY be used for a real-time
transmission and presentation according to the description in this
specification. The text and real-time aspects of transmission are
specified in draft-hellstrom-simple-text-transmission [7] .
5.4. Hybrid RTP / Message transport
The real-time text preview metod may also be implemented with a
combination of the real-time text transport protocol RFC 4103 and a
text message protocol, e.g. MSRP. The real-time text protocol is
then used to give the preview, and the text message protocol is used
for retransmission of the same text, when entries are completed.
The real-time text preview method may also be implemented with a
combination of the real-time text transport protocol RFC 4103 [2] and
a text message protocol, e.g. MSRP. The real-time text protocol is
then used to give the preview, and the text message protocol is used
for retransmission of the same text, when entries are completed.
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
5.5. Identification of entries
The transport method SHALL allow identification of the source of
text, so that text from different sources can be arranged for
convenient and readable presentation at the receiving end. [e.g. to
attach labels to the incoming text).
6. Multi-party sessions
A multi-party session can be presented in a similar manner as the
two-party session. The chat-view with real-time entry at the bottom
of the window is one possible view.
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
A three-party view is shown in this example .
_________________________________________________
| |^|
| | |
| | |
| | |
|[Alice] Hi, Alice here. | |
| | |
|[Bob] Bob as well. | |
| | |
|[Eve] Hi, this is Eve, calling from Paris. | |
| I thought you should be here. | |
| | |
|[Alice] I am coming on Thursday, my | |
| performance is not until Friday morning.| |
| | |
|[Bob] And I on Wednesday evening. | |
| | |
|[Alice] Can we meet on Thursday evening? | |
| | |
|[Eve] Yes, definitely. How about 7pm. | |
| at the entrance of the restaurant | |
| Le Lion Blanc? | |
|[Eve] we can have dinner and then take a walk | |
| | |
| <Eve-typing> But I need to be back to | |
| the hotel by 11 because I need | |
| |-|
| <Bob-typing> I wou |-|
|______________________________________________|v|
| of course, I underst |
|________________________________________________|
Figure 2: Three-party call with real-time preview.
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
Figure 2: This figure shows how a coordinated column view MAY be
presented on Alice's device.
______________________________________________________________________
| Bob | Eve | Alice |
|____________________|______________________|________________________|
| | |I will arrive by TGV. |
|My flight is to Orly| |Convenient to the main |
| |Hi all, can we plan |station. |
| |for the seminar? | |
|Eve, will you do | | |
|your presentation on| | |
|Friday? |Yes, Friday at 10. | |
|Fine, wo | |We need to meet befo |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Figure 3: A coordinated column-view of a three-party session with
entries ordered in approximate time-order.
In the column view, the column showing text transmitted from the
device where the presentation is made, SHOULD be placed to the right
of all other columns, so that users recognize the operating
environment between different devices.
In an environment with less space in the display it MAY be necessary
to give up on displaying the relative time order in the column view
in order to display more of the conversation contents in available
space.
Yet other situations may call for display in separate windows for
example underneath video images from each participant.
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
________________________ _____________________ ___________________
| Bob | | Eve | | Alice |
|______________________| |___________________| |__________________|
| ooooo | | 888 | | ... |
| / o o\ | | 8/- -\8 | | ||||| |
| ( _ | | | 0| | |0 | | || o o || |
| \_____/ | | | _ | | | || v || |
| | | \___/ | | ||\___/|| |
|______________________| |___________________| |__________________|
|Help me to spell | |necessary | |ne.... OK you take|
|nessessarry,I always | | | |it |
|get it wrong | | | | |
|______________________| |___________________| |__________________|
Figure 4: Example of text conversation entries placed underneath
video images from each participant.
When implemented in an environment that supports multi-party calls,
it may be felt less important to maintain a real-time preview view of
text from all participants. It may be very important for some
participants to have rapid real-time preview presentation of selected
participants, e.g. for live captioning of the call by a third party.
Thus it may be desirable to be able to turn on or off the preview
presentation per user. When turning off real-time preview from one
participant, its presentation SHALL disappear from the preview
window, and text SHALL be entered en-bloc to the history display as
they are finished for that participant.
7. Presence indication
Appropriate SIP based presence features SHOULD be used to indicate
status in the user interface, e.g. that the user is typing when in
'en bloc' mode.
8. Alerting
In order to be useful for hearing impaired, deaf and deaf-blind users
as well as all situations with all users, it is important to provide
audible, visual and, where possible, tactile alerting from events in
the text conversation application.
It should be possible for a user to get external alerting signals
with a method preferred by the user. It may for example be
vibration, light flashes or sound as selected by the user. It should
also be possible to get alerting on the screen at certain events.
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
The signals to external alerting systems should be issued when an
incoming request for session initiation is received. When the method
is used in connection with T.140 [1] presentation, it should also be
issued when the alert-in-session T.140 control event is received.
For minor events, for example when an entry from a user is completed
and displayed in the conversation display area, an indication MAY be
given e.g. by an on-screen flashing or any other suitable alerting
signal.
It may be useful to provide external alerting also for these minor
events in specific situations. If the user has not touched the
application for a number of minutes when the minor event occurs it
may be of interest to get an external alert. Details of such
arrangements are outside the scope of this document.
9. IANA Considerations
None.
10. Security Considerations
This specification does not introduce any procedures that change
security issues from what is already specified for the session and
transport environment where the presentation method is applied.
11. Normative References
[1] ITU-T, "Recommendation T.140, Protocol for Multimedia
Application Text Conversation (including Addendum)",
February 2000.
[2] Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text Conversation",
RFC 4103, June 2005.
[3] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64,
RFC 3550, July 2003.
[4] Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message Session
Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007.
[5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[6] Hellstrom, G. and A. Wijk, "Text media handling in RTP based
real-time and message conferences",
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
draft-hellstrom-text-conference-00 (work in progress),
January 2008.
[7] Hellstrom, G., Jones, P., and G. Vanderheiden, "Coding and
transmission of text in real-time and en-bloc mode based on
MSRP", draft-hellstrom-simple-text-transmission-00 (work in
progress), January 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Gunnar Hellstrom
Omnitor
PO Box 92054
12006 Stockholm
Sweden
Phone: +46-8-58900050
Email: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
Norman Williams
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Ave
Kendall Hall 101a
Washington, DC 20002
USA
Email: norman.williams@gallaudet.edu
Arnoud A. T. van Wijk
Realtimetext.org
Email: arnoud@realtimetext.org
Gregg C. Vanderheiden
Trace R&D Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison
1550 Engineering Drive
Madison, WI 53706
USA
Email: gv@trace.wisc.edu
URI: http://www.engr.wisc.edu/ie/faculty/vanderheiden_gregg.html
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Presentation of text conversation January 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Hellstrom, et al. Expires August 1, 2008 [Page 18]