Re: [dispatch] Disaggregated Media in SIP

Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei@adobe.com> Tue, 07 July 2009 01:48 UTC

Return-Path: <hsinnrei@adobe.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF5D3A6A17 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.986
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.612, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fbcThvbTK7qD for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og101.obsmtp.com (exprod6og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.181]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD42B28C131 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob101.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSlKpiqT2Cfxp3LOYxu/WXws0lbhKGIYf@postini.com; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:49:15 PDT
Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n670Hhao023358; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nacas01.corp.adobe.com (nacas01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.99]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n670O3iq007226; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nambx05.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.124]) by nacas01.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.99]) with mapi; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:24:03 -0700
From: Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei@adobe.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:24:01 -0700
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] Disaggregated Media in SIP
Thread-Index: Acn+em+0BaLXNsLrTai84REw9nbCHwAHsoYn
Message-ID: <C677FFD1.48EB%hsinnrei@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A5261E2.4050506@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C677FFD148EBhsinnreiadobecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Disaggregated Media in SIP
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:48:55 -0000

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" <pkyzivat@cisco.com> 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:alice_camera@alice.com 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" <audet@nortel.com> 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: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org
>     >  [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Salvatore Loreto
>     >  Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 09:33
>     >  To: dispatch@ietf.org
>     >  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
>     >  dispatch@ietf.org
>     >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>     >
>     _______________________________________________
>     dispatch mailing list
>     dispatch@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch