Re: [Sip] querying the current event state of a publication

Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com> Tue, 30 March 2004 23:52 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07067 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:52:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B8Rix-0006ZK-My for sip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:28:47 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0RNxemf025805 for sip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:59:40 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ald6w-0006Wl-MN; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:59:14 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Al9mK-00021P-NB for sip@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:40:00 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12272 for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:39:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Al9mJ-0007OJ-00 for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:39:59 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Al9lM-0007Lf-00 for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:39:01 -0500
Received: from [63.113.44.69] (helo=mail3.dynamicsoft.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Al9ku-0007Is-00 for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:38:32 -0500
Received: from dynamicsoft.com (dyn-tx-app-004.dfw.dynamicsoft.com [63.110.3.2]) by mail3.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i0QGbx9W009036; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:38:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <40154262.9010400@dynamicsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:37:54 -0500
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>
Organization: dynamicsoft
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
CC: sip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] querying the current event state of a publication
References: <4012E741.5000809@dynamicsoft.com> <40152C68.8030802@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <40152C68.8030802@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

inline.

Paul Kyzivat wrote:


>> If we want this functionality, I have an idea for an alternative 
>> approach that works much better, triggered by some conversations I had 
>> with Ben C. recently.
> 
> 
> That's a big IF. Do we really want to mandate that every compositor must 
> be prepared to provide this? It certainly puts contraints on the 
> implementations, and in most cases I think publishers can be constructed 
> so that they don't need this capability.

The main constraint I think it introduces is that the compositor needs 
to keep around the presence documents from each individual source, in 
addition to the final result of composition. I am not sure if this is 
new; I don't know how it couuld do composition without keeping these 
around.

> 
> I think the only time you might need this event state is when partial 
> publication is in use and the publisher has forgotten the full state, 

Yes, I agree this is one possible use case.

> or 
> when a backup publisher is trying to pick up from another one. In the 
> former case, there is no real advantage over simply transmitting the 
> full state as a refresh - same amount of data is required.

A fair point.

> 
> The advisability of supporting the latter case seems questionable to me. 
> There is a lot of work in providing a real failover backup, and it might 
> as well include remembering the state locally. If this capability is 
> provided we run the risk of abetting the construction of dualing 
> endpoints competing to publish particular event state.

I think that is a consequence of a backup takinig over publication for 
a primary, not a consequence of reading the current presence state or not.

> 
> But, if in the end there is a good argument for this capability, then 
> the proposal for how to do it seems reasonable.

My suggestion was mostly along the lines of - this is a good way to do 
it, rather than, we should have this feature. I recall there was a 
3gpp requrement for it, and  I remember asking why it was there, and I 
dont remember the answer, in fact.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip