Eric Burger (eburger@snowshore.com)
Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:08:04 -0400
Although it might not be obvious, a "voice message context" without audio
does make sense. For example, a bunch of people are working on
transcription services, where they record a voice message and store or send
a text e-mail. The semantics are still voice (e.g. a person cared enough to
call), but there's no audio part to the message.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vpim@lists.neystadt.org [mailto:owner-vpim@lists.neystadt.org]On
Behalf Of Glenn Parsons
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 6:19 PM
To: 'IETF VPIM List'
Subject: [VPIM] VPIM Meeting Notes from IETF 51
Folks,
Please review the following minutes from IETF 51. I will send them in as-is
if I there are no comments by Aug 24th. FYI, the presentations are on the
VPIM website at: http://www.ema.org/vpim/meetings/minutes.html#ietf
[snip]
* If a Message-context of voice-message is not required, what makes a
message an Internet Voice Message? Does it have to contains an approved
voice content type (or rather any voice content type, as this is permitted)?
Can a message with no voice content be an IVM? This is permitted for a
Message-context of voice-message, but does it make sense for an Internet
Voice Message? This could be addressed by rewording the requirement on
content type as follows: "An Internet Voice Message MUST contain at least
one audio part, which may be at any location within a message and SHOULD be
contained in either an audio/wav or audio/basic content-type - the only
exception being when the originator is aware that the recipient can handle
other content."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Aug 23 2001 - 07:07:33 IDT