Re: [dispatch] Disaggregated Media in SIP

["Francois Audet" <[e-mail]>]

I think what Paul calls automata is the application on the IM client, so that would undermine what this spec and all of us in the Enterprise space have been trying to do for years.
 
I will note that the "istyping" indication is already done today with MESSAGE. And the istyping indicator is certainly an automata. And that is an RFC today, and is widly deployed.
 
I personally don't really care if its a MESSAGE, a REFER, or an INFO (although we certainly can rule out MBUS). Or a new message.
 
I don't think "other protocols" is a good answer: it has to be routable just like SIP.


________________________________

	From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[e-mail]] 
	Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 17:24
	To: Paul Kyzivat
	Cc: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Salvatore Loreto; [e-mail]
	Subject: Re: [dispatch] Disaggregated Media in SIP
	
	
	Paul Kyzivat wrote:
	>Past suggestions by various people to send control signals (intended tobe acted upon 
	>by automata rather than >people) via IM have generally been
	>rejected as inappropriate. 
	
	I am not sure how many people expect a usage scenario for IM with an automata in the middle or 
	what the deployment statistics are for such automata (I have never encountered one).  
	
	All SIP (or other protocol ) Communicator packages have IM and the URI works there very nicely.
	
	Do you have any usage statistics that justifies the assertion automata are the 
	key usage scenario and "plain person to person" IM does not count?
	
	Henry
	
	
	On 7/6/09 3:43 PM, "Paul Kyzivat" <[e-mail]> wrote:
	
	

		
		
		
		Henry Sinnreich wrote:
		>>We've looked at various approaches to solve this important
		>>problem several times before
		>
		> Actually there is one more: IM-ing a URI to some resource, mentioned by
		> Henning Schulzrinne (I don't recall the document or presentation).
		>
		> My two cents is that IM-ing a URL is the most general solution, or is it?
		
		Past suggestions by various people to send control signals (intended to
		be acted upon by automata rather than people) via IM have generally been
		rejected as inappropriate. (The exception so far has been file transfer,
		which has some control behavior and some expected human interaction.)
		
		Now if you just want to say "Bob, please make a video call to
		sip:[e-mail] in order to see me" then I guess IM is ok.
		But IMO its not otherwise good. Its just a hack.
		
		        Thanks,
		        Paul
		
		> Henry
		>
		>
		> On 7/6/09 12:07 PM, "Francois Audet" <[e-mail]> wrote:
		>
		>     I'm glad to see this topic coming back.
		>
		>     I see that this draft doesn't propose a solution to problem: it list
		>     three options, and describes why they are not adequate. I agree with
		>     the conclusions.
		>
		>     We've looked at various approaches to solve this important problem
		>     several times before:
		>
		>     - Feature ref (refer to urn: indicating specific features)
		>       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-audet-sipping-feature-ref-00
		>
		>     - Remote control using REFER to requests & responses
		>       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahy-sip-remote-cc-05
		>       (Also, versions -04, -03,-02, -00)
		>
		>     - Remore control using REFER with XML body describing function
		>       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahy-sip-remote-cc-01
		>
		>     - Remote control using MBUS
		>       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahy-mmusic-mbus-remotecc-01 &
		>       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahy-mmusic-mbus-sdp-01
		>
		>     On top of that there are various proprietary mechanisms, and even
		>     some legacy
		>     PBX-CTI protocols.
		>
		>     >  -----Original Message-----
		>     >  From: [e-mail]
		>     >  [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Salvatore Loreto
		>     >  Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 09:33
		>     >  To: [e-mail]
		>     >  Subject: [dispatch] Disaggregated Media in SIP
		>     >
		>     >  Hi there,
		>     >
		>     >  I have just submitted a draft that talks of Disaggregated
		>     >  Media in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).
		>     >  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-loreto-dispatch-disa
		>     ggregated-media-00.txt
		>     >
		>     >
		>     >  Abstract:
		>     >  Disaggregated media refers to the ability for a user to create a
		>     >  multimedia session combining different media streams, coming from
		>     >  different devices under his or her control, so that they are
		>     >  treated by
		>     >  the far end of the session as a single media session.
		>     >  This document lists several use cases that involve
		>     >  disaggregated media
		>     >  in SIP.
		>     >  Additionally, this document analyzes what types of
		>     >  disaggregated media
		>     >  can be implemented using existing protocol
		>     >  mechanisms, and the pros and cons of using each of those mechanisms.
		>     >  Finally, this document describes scenarios that are not covered by
		>     >  current mechanisms
		>     >  and proposes new IETF work to cover them.
		>     >
		>     >
		>     >  cheers
		>     >  Sal
		>     >  _______________________________________________
		>     >  dispatch mailing list
		>     >  [e-mail]
		>     >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
		>     >
		>     _______________________________________________
		>     dispatch mailing list
		>     [e-mail]
		>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
		>
		>
		> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
		>
		> _______________________________________________
		> dispatch mailing list
		> [e-mail]
		> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch