Re: [Ecrit] Summary of compromise proposal

Let me be clearer:

	I am not OK with Randal's compromise solution.

	MSD is related to eCall so >>when updated MSD is sent via INFO from UE to PSAP<<, I don't see why the MSD should not be associated with the eCall info-package.

	I support Christer's compromise solution.

Kind regards

ivo

-----Original Message-----
From: R.Jesske@telekom.de [mailto:R.Jesske@telekom.de] 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 2:20 PM
To: Ivo Sedlacek; hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net; rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org; ecrit@ietf.org
Subject: AW: [Ecrit] Summary of compromise proposal

Hi Ivo,
I do not understand what you will say with your statement.

Initial MSD is sent with INVITE and an update of MSD is done via INFO.

So it is only the update of the MSD data.

So from my understanding it is the same as Christer stated within his Statement.

Or what do you mean?

Best Regards

Roland

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ecrit [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Ivo Sedlacek
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. September 2016 12:50
An: Hannes Tschofenig; Randall Gellens; ecrit@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] Summary of compromise proposal

I am not OK with Randal's compromise solution.

MSD is related to eCall so I don't see why it should not be associated with the eCall info-package.

I support Christer's compromise solution.

Kind regards

Ivo

-----Original Message-----
From: Ecrit [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:43 PM
To: Randall Gellens; ecrit@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Summary of compromise proposal

Hi Randy,

I am OK with this compromise.

Ciao
Hannes

On 09/01/2016 03:35 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I want to summarize the compromise that was proposed a couple weeks 
> ago, for clarity:
>
> - The metadata/control object is associated with the INFO package
> - The MSD is not associated with the INFO package and is always sent 
> using Call-Info to refer to it
> - PSAP requests an updated MSD mid-call by sending an INFO containing 
> a metadata/control object requesting an MSD, per the INFO package, 
> with
> "Content-Disposition: info-package", and no Call-Info header field
> - IVS sends an INFO with a metadata/control object containing an ACK 
> with "success=true" indicating it sent the updated MSD
> - IVS attaches an updated MSD in any convenient message; typically 
> this will be the INFO with the ACK
>
>
> This means that the INFO package defines a clean request/response 
> protocol, while the MSD remains Additional Data per RFC 7852.
>
> For the initial MSD (unchanged by the compromise), the MSD is included 
> in the INVITE, referenced by a Call-Info header field and can be 
> acknowledged in a final response (e.g. 200, 4xx, 6xx) using a metadata 
> object referenced by a Call-Info header field.
>
> The authors believe this compromise addresses the concerns raised, and 
> provides a mechanism that can be easily extended in other documents 
> (such as car-crash or future documents).
>

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit