Subject: [Sipping] Re: items for vor voting in the BOF

From: "Guido Gybels" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:31:03 +0000 GMT

Paul,

<<While I guess it might be a bit late now>>

The discussion on the sipdev document took place yesterday, and if you wanted to make a point you were free to attend it. You'll see the results reflected in the next version of the document, and I can say that both Arnoud and myself believe this result to be extremely sensible as well as in the best interest of all stakeholders.
I also suggest this no longer belongs here on the mailing list until a new issue would arise. I have stopped replying to your emails a while ago as I see no point in continuing the discussion (and swamping the list) with someone who, despite being a native English speaker, seems unable to understand what we are saying and more importantly deliberately misrepresents my statements or attributes words to my mouth that I did not speak.

<<would guess most people will say "yes" to, while I know you'd say "no" to
it.>>

This being a nice example of that.

I believe the IETF community has shown great wisdom and a true understanding of what is at stake here. We have now got a solid path to the future, with a clear strategy to get rid of obsolete and unsatisfactory solutions allowing a gradual move of deaf, hard of hearing and speech impaired people into mainstream technology. That will of course take time during which there will have to be legacy support and all the instruments are put in place to do exactly that.

Guido

Guido Gybels
Director of New Technologies

RNID, 19-23 Featherstone Street
London EC1Y 8SL, UK
Tel +44(0)20-7294 3713
Fax +44(0)20-7296 8069

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: "Andrea Saks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 07:30:28 +0100

Paul is absolutely right.  Just to let all of you know I think this little
outcome in my opinion is in direct violation of some ADA legislation in the
USA  that includes both IP and telecoms in its mandate. I have just been
brought up to speed in the USA during my participation at the ITU workshop
at the TDI convention this past week. Australian participation was present
as well. I will be informing all my contacts including those at the Justice
department, FCC and  State department and ITU of the results of this
meeting.

 Contray to Guido wanting to restrict I want it all out in the open!!So
Guido's glee may be in vain. It certainly is premature . I do not think this
outcome will stand.

And as I have said before it seems unlikely ETSI will take a strong view
either.  I think any attempt to try and separate Europe from the USA is
futile both in spirit and in practical terms and defeats the whole exercise
of compatibility and communication for the deaf on a world wide basis. .
The USA Canada and Australia comprise the largest body of Textphone users in
the world.  The RNID does not speak for the world nor  should it and nor
will it.  Paul is also right that work on reflectors is as valid as physical
presence and those experienced in standards work know that to be true.

Hearing people do not have to give up their  devices why should the deaf. We
all use different devices and systems at different times as appropriate.
Why should we have to give up anything because a few  want to change  the
world with a "perfect device" that unfortunately very few people will buy.
People with marketing experience will also know that people  will buy the
cheaper ones without support ..  And since standards are voluntary it
might ignored all together.  All you are creating in theory is the next
legacy device if it even gets made.  The systems and   all devices that are
created  like IP phone  must support all  legacy devices  and only then can
true migration happen. People who fail to understand history are doomed to
repeat its mistakes. In this case I suspect a lot of people do not even know
that this tactic has been attempted before and failed  and not just in the
deaf world.

This messenger will be  back to you all after I have illuminated
 consulted) with) the bodies above to the "wisdom"of this adhoc group.

Andrea J Saks
Telecommunications Specialist for the Deaf
Rockville, The Quarry
Brockhampton
Gloucestershire GL 54 5XL
United Kingdom

Tel  +44 1242 820800
Minicom +44 1242 820623  ( V21 and Baudot only)
Fax +44 1242 821171
Mobile +44 7956 222916

asaks @ waitrose.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul E. Jones <[email-masked]>
To: Gunnar Hellström <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>; Guido Gybels
<[email-masked]>; Mike Spanner <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; 'Rajesh Kumar' <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; James Hamlin
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; Andrea Saks
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 1:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Re: items for vor voting in the BOF

Gunnar,

I made a couple of typos that, perhaps, might make a difference to you.

The results stated that an RJ-11 interface was a "may".  *If* it supports an
RJ-11, then it *may* support RFC 2793 and *must* support pass-through.

I typed a bit too fast below.  What I intended to say what that we should
have made support for pass-through a *must* in all cases where RFC 2793 is
not supported.  However, we should separate that requirement from whether
there is an RJ-11, 2.5mm audio jack, or acoustic coupling.

Below, you wrote: "most textphone users are nowadays used to let the
textphone do the dialing and answering..."  I would tend to think that will
continue to be true in the following two cases:
  1) The new textphone is an IP textphone (this includes
     any standard IP phone with native RFC 2793 support)
  2) The textphone is plugged into a residential gateway
     (in this case, the textphone is the same technology as used
      today.)

What is excluded from support is the class of phones that you find on the
shelf at Wal-Mart that will not have a suitable display nor an interface for
a display and keyboard.  I've said before that I think there will be such a
class of devices and I think we'd be foolish not give that consideration.
As it is now, there is the potential for millions of IP phones to be
produced that have absolutely no support for text, nor an interface for
connecting with legacy TTY devices.

Are you willing to allow the production of 100,000,000 IP phones that have
no means of doing text telephony?  According to the ad-hoc group, this is
acceptable.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gunnar Hellström" <[email-masked]>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>; "Guido Gybels"
<[email-masked]>; "Mike Spanner" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "'Rajesh Kumar'" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "James Hamlin"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Andrea Saks"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 6:00 PM
Subject: SV: [Sipping] Re: items for vor voting in the BOF

> If the outcome of the text discussion in sipdev is what is reported by
Paul,
> I think it is a reasonable result, and I hope it will have the desired
> effect on products and implementations.
>
> It is true that displays can be arranged in other ways than having it on
the
> telephone itself, so the hook to the presence of a display seems in fact
> superfluous.
>
> I am prepared to accept this for now. But I hope that other accessibility
> requirements emerge and make the standardised interface to user interface
> devices a reality. That would include the audio channels, that, if
provided
> without sidetone, can be used either for hearing aid connection or for
audio
> based  textphone connection if there would be any wish to use that mode.
>
> By the way, most textphone users are nowadays used to let the textphone do
> the dialling and answering, so the use of an audio based textphone on a
pure
> audio connection will not be understood and appreciated by many users.
They
> maintain a phonebook in the textphone and let the textphone also act as an
> answering machine. All these functions are lost if you connect it to the
> audio channels directly.
>
> When will there be test partners in SIPPIT for the agreed functionality?
>
> Regards
>
> Gunnar
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Gunnar Hellström, Omnitor, Renathvägen 2
> SE 121 37 Johanneshov, SWEDEN
> Tel: +46 8 556 002 03  Mob: +46 708204288
> e-mail: [email-masked]
> web: www.omnitor.se
>
>
> > -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> > Från: Paul E. Jones [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Skickat: den 18 juli 2003 17:05
> > Till: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Kopia: Henry Sinnreich; Gunnar Hellstrom; Guido Gybels; Mike Spanner;
> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> > 'Rajesh Kumar'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; James
> > Hamlin; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Andrea Saks
> > Ämne: Re: [Sipping] Re: items for vor voting in the BOF
> >
> >
> > Guido,
> >
> > I wish I could have attended, but I was attending a TDI conference here
in
> > the US.  I couldn't be in both places at the same time, though I wish I
> > could.  I was disheartened that the questions were not presented as I
> > proposed.  You should know that, supposedly, work gets done over
> > the e-mail
> > reflector, not only in the meeting, so not being there should not have
> > lessened my input on the matter.
> >
> > Looking at the results of the ad-hoc reported by Rohan, I see:
> >   1) *If* an IP phone supports a display (and keyboard??), it
> >      must support RFC 2793
> >   2) IP phones *should* provide a way to input text
> >   3) IP phones *may* provide an RJ-11 interface and *must*
> >      support pass-through.
> >
> > Now, my concerns are several.  It appears that you have absolutely no
> > requirement for the mass of products that do not sport a display
> > to support
> > text in either relay or pass-through mode.  Further, there is no
> > mention of
> > a 2.5mm jack being an option.  Question 3, as I mentioned,
> > "pressured" folks
> > more than it should.  There should have been no reason to require
> > support of
> > pass-through, at the very least.
> >
> > I told you that my questions were to ensure that we at least get
> > support for
> > text on every phone in one way or another.  It looks like you
> > lost.  Company
> > X is now free to build an IP phone without any text support.  I'm
> > not really
> > happy about that and I certainly don't see why you should be.
> >
> > Paul
> >

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 21:42:14 +0200

I have created a new mailing list to discuss the sipdev document, and I 
have subscribed everyone on this thread.  The mailing list should be 
active within 72 hours.  I will post an announcement to 
[email-masked] informing folks of the existence of this new list.

To subscribe from another address, send email to [email-masked] with 
no subject.  the body of your email should be:

	subscribe sipdev

To unsubscribe send to the same address:

	unsubscribe sipdev

To send mail to the list send to   [email-masked]

many thanks,
-rohan

---

From: Gunnar Hellström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:00:28 +0200

If the outcome of the text discussion in sipdev is what is reported by Paul,
I think it is a reasonable result, and I hope it will have the desired
effect on products and implementations.

It is true that displays can be arranged in other ways than having it on the
telephone itself, so the hook to the presence of a display seems in fact
superfluous.

I am prepared to accept this for now. But I hope that other accessibility
requirements emerge and make the standardised interface to user interface
devices a reality. That would include the audio channels, that, if provided
without sidetone, can be used either for hearing aid connection or for audio
based  textphone connection if there would be any wish to use that mode.

By the way, most textphone users are nowadays used to let the textphone do
the dialling and answering, so the use of an audio based textphone on a pure
audio connection will not be understood and appreciated by many users. They
maintain a phonebook in the textphone and let the textphone also act as an
answering machine. All these functions are lost if you connect it to the
audio channels directly.

Regards

Gunnar

> I wish I could have attended, but I was attending a TDI conference here in

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:04:49 -0400

Guido,

proposed.  You should know that, supposedly, work gets done over the e-mail

Now, my concerns are several.  It appears that you have absolutely no
requirement for the mass of products that do not sport a display to support
text in either relay or pass-through mode.  Further, there is no mention of
a 2.5mm jack being an option.  Question 3, as I mentioned, "pressured" folks
more than it should.  There should have been no reason to require support of
pass-through, at the very least.

I told you that my questions were to ensure that we at least get support for
text on every phone in one way or another.  It looks like you lost.  Company
X is now free to build an IP phone without any text support.  I'm not really
happy about that and I certainly don't see why you should be.

Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Guido Gybels" <[email-masked]>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>; "Gunnar Hellstrom"
<[email-masked]>; "Guido Gybels" <[email-masked]>;
"Mike Spanner" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "'Rajesh Kumar'"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
"James Hamlin" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:31 AM
Subject: [Sipping] Re: items for vor voting in the BOF

> The discussion on the sipdev document took place yesterday, and if you
wanted to make a point you were free to attend it. You'll see the results
reflected in the next version of the document, and I can say that both
Arnoud and myself believe this result to be extremely sensible as well as in
the best interest of all stakeholders.
> I also suggest this no longer belongs here on the mailing list until a new
issue would arise. I have stopped replying to your emails a while ago as I
see no point in continuing the discussion (and swamping the list) with
someone who, despite being a native English speaker, seems unable to
understand what we are saying and more importantly deliberately
misrepresents my statements or attributes words to my mouth that I did not
speak.
> I believe the IETF community has shown great wisdom and a true
understanding of what is at stake here. We have now got a solid path to the
future, with a clear strategy to get rid of obsolete and unsatisfactory
solutions allowing a gradual move of deaf, hard of hearing and speech
impaired people into mainstream technology. That will of course take time
during which there will have to be legacy support and all the instruments
are put in place to do exactly that.