Presence and IntComm WG

[Jeremy George <>]

  This terrific note generated some very nice reactions.

# Joe wrote:

    SIP.  However, I also thing that we can achieve our goal without
    demanding that we are SIP end-to-end.  SIP.edu, which actually likes SIP
    so much that it has SIP in it's name, isn't always SIP end-to-end.  But
    people get the idea.  I use SIP, I contact someone. I argue that we
    relax our grip on controlling all aspects of the RTC, and focus more on
    the PIC.  All the end user wants to do is communicate with someone;

The end user may not care about the process underlying the communication
but we certainly should.  While I understand the point made here, and I
mostly agree with it, we should be thoughtful about the mechanisms we
employ.
   

# Joe wrote:

    end user to make softphone to cell and cell to cell calls, depending on
    how we implement it.  

I think the cell to cell via SIP click-to-dial use case is weak.  I'd put
it in a low priority queue.  


# Joe wrote:

    I know that there are some that are not fans of gateways, but we are
    putting in a PSTN gateway because we recognize the need to expand our
    calling audience.  It would be beneficial if we use that same gateway to
    extend the integrated part of our communications.  I believe that it
    would help people 'get' what we are trying to explain.  And it would
    also help solve that little nagging voice problem that we admit to
    having...

I'm not sure I accept that lightbulbs are going to light up over lots of
heads just because we add an IP-PSTN gateway.  Nor that this is a good
way to solve voice problems.


# Candace wrote:

    It sounds lovely, but it would be a good idea to find a sponsor ($ and 
    technical setup and monitoring) for the PSTN gateway before investing any 
    time in the development and planning.

The reality check seems like a good idea to me.  I wouldn't want to hold
up development but I agree we should push on the feasibility issue.

#  Stephen wrote:


    I am mindful that I do not want to turn this into just a telephone 
    service, so please view these comments accordingly.

Agreed and okay.

    Perhaps it would not be hard to find a sponsor, at the Australian 
    equivalent to the Members Meeting we provide free phone calls from IP 
    Telephones.

    Also we would offer free IP Telephone calls into most of Australia if 
    they came from Internet2's SIP Proxy Server as part of a test/trial, and 
    we would also do the SMS gateway for calls into Australia as part of the 
    test/trial for free as well. 

As we think of new and interesting ideas, it's important that we continue
to consider whether the ideas in a future production environment,  Do they
scale?  Are they needed?  Toll bypass was indeed the original driver
behind VoIP but those days are long gone.  


#  Steve wrote:

    We had this with Broadsoft as well. For a production service it is cool 
    and also integrates
    billing into one statement. No one need bring in their bill for 
    reimbursement. The MM crowd
    may not be WOWed by integrated billing but it wouldn't hurt to mention 
    that benefit of click-to-cell (call).

My guess is that decision makers will see this _very_ clearly.  Let's not
let this slip.

    Perhaps. I think we need to be careful that we don't send the message 
    that we are the same as the
    voip-wg. We are suppose to be about more than voice calls. Plus with 
    voice working as poorly
    as it has at past MMs I am not sure I want just voice in any form as the 
    newest PIC feature.

Yeah, the last point may be worth kicking around some.

    If we must emphasize voice then lets look at call quality using 
    different codecs. I think there is more
    value in better quality using less bandwidth then just call completion.

Good point.  The metric should be how many calls were completed to the
users' satisfaction, not how many raw connections there were.


# Alistair wrote:

    I like Joe's suggestions. I'm also conscious that we are getting
    dominated by voice, which (as I've said previously) is just going to
    be problematic with 802.11. We already spend a lot of our time
    fiddling with it.

    I'd prefer focussing on SMS, possibly via some chat application.
    Some providers (possibly all?) have IP gateways to their SMS relays
    and the cost issue may not apply. They can handle a few billion
    messages a month so bursts from a PIC session shouldn't trouble them.

I agree.  I know some folks think voice is the killer app but the recent
evidence in the rise of text messaging seems to challenge that bit of
conventional wisdon.  I'd like to see more attention paid to text.


  Again, Joe, great posting.  Keep this up and we'll double your PIC
salary :)

- Jeremy

--