Re: [dispatch] Charter proposal: Session Recording Protocol

"Scott Lawrence" <scott.lawrence@nortel.com> Mon, 09 November 2009 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.lawrence@nortel.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 8066228C165 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:00:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 fLP6YvxDFL+1 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:00:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com (zcars04e.nortel.com [47.129.242.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05D73A684A for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id nA9F14c18108; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:01:05 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([47.17.25.99]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:00:42 -0500
From: Scott Lawrence <scott.lawrence@nortel.com>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AB780B4.3000601@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <4AB780B4.3000601@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Nortel Networks
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:00:41 -0500
Message-Id: <1257778841.32566.102.camel@scott>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 (2.24.5-2.fc10)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2009 15:00:42.0833 (UTC) FILETIME=[68932410:01CA614D]
Cc: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>, rai-ads <rai-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Charter proposal: Session Recording Protocol
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: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:00:49 -0000

On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 08:33 -0500, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> Hi: The following charter proposal is a continuation of the
> work presented on the same topic (SIP Session Recording)
> at the Stockholm IETF.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> The Session Recording Protocol (SRP) working group is chartered to 
> define a SIP-based protocol for controlling a session (media) recorder.
> 
> Session recording is a critical requirement in many business 
> communications environments such as call centers and financial trading 
> floors.  In some of these environments, all calls must be recorded for 
> regulatory and compliance reasons.  In others, calls may be recorded for 
> quality control, business analytics, or consumer protection.  Recording 
> is typically done by sending a copy of the media to the recording 
> devices.  The working group will produce a specification for a protocol 
> that will manage delivery of media from an end-point that originates 
> media or that has access to it to a recording device. PBX and recording 
> vendors today implement proprietary, incompatible mechanisms to 
> facilitate recording. A standard protocol will reduce the complexity and 
> cost of providing such recording services.
> 
> The Session Recording problem presents certain unique requirements that 
> are not addressed in the current SIP protocol specification. These 
> include requirements such as the need for a distinction between the 
> session that is being recorded versus the session that has been 
> established for recording.

I'd like to register my support for this work.  I think that the draft
does a good job laying out the requirements, and that interoperable
solutions to these problems would be of benefit to everyone.

I would like to have architectures considered that don't rely on a
middlebox of any kind for this, with dataflows like:


 +-------------+                   SIP                       +-------------+
 |             |<------------------------------------------->|             |
 |             |                                             |             |
 |     UA-B    |<---------+                          +------>|     UA-C    |
 |             |          | RTP                  RTP |       |             |
 +-------------+          |    +--------------+      |       +-------------+ 
    |                     |    |   Recorder   |      |
    | Recording Control   +--->|     (RS)     |<-----+         
    | Call Metadata events     |              | 
    +------------------------->+--------------+ 
           (SIP)             

I won't be able to participate even remotely during the DISPATCH session
on this, but would like to point out that in many ways this fits the
description of BLISS work items: it is fundamentally a calling feature
dealing with switching call legs appropriately among participants.
Whether to establish a dedicated working group or not is up to the ADs;
whether they decide to send it to BLISS or to charter a new group, I
look forward to participating.