RE: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.txt> (Use Cases andRequirements for SIP-based Media Recording (SIPREC)) toInformational RFC
"Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com> Thu, 14 April 2011 12:57 UTC
Return-Path: <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6657E068E; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 05:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.869
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.730, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fkkQG99ZXX7J; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 05:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail174.messagelabs.com (mail174.messagelabs.com [85.158.138.51]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 57451E065F; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 05:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-174.messagelabs.com!1302785852!17056843!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.9; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [62.134.46.10]
Received: (qmail 423 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2011 12:57:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO senmx12-mx) (62.134.46.10) by server-12.tower-174.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 14 Apr 2011 12:57:32 -0000
Received: from MCHP064A.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.37.63]) by senmx12-mx (Server) with ESMTP id 4D7B023F03DB; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:57:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP058A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.55]) by MCHP064A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.63]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:57:32 +0200
From: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Leon Portman <Leon.Portman@nice.com>, "Muthu ArulMozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:57:30 +0200
Subject: RE: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.txt> (Use Cases andRequirements for SIP-based Media Recording (SIPREC)) toInformational RFC
Thread-Topic: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.txt> (Use Cases andRequirements for SIP-based Media Recording (SIPREC)) toInformational RFC
Thread-Index: Acv0WYBeRuGjGNBtTZSHeqn78QP5xwGEv6YwAAlHtwAAAvtH0AABcMXA
Message-ID: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0875EB5B28@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
References: <20110406125020.17538.70016.idtracker@localhost> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C65380492020533BB70@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0875EB5A4E@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <07465C1D981ABC41A344374066AE1A2C38AB73D00B@TLVMBX01.nice.com>
In-Reply-To: <07465C1D981ABC41A344374066AE1A2C38AB73D00B@TLVMBX01.nice.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "siprec@ietf.org" <siprec@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:57:35 -0000
Understood, but if we have wall clock time for the start of a CS, wouldn't that be sufficient? The new requirement would cover synchronization of all media start/stops relative to that time. John (as individual) > -----Original Message----- > From: Leon Portman [mailto:Leon.Portman@nice.com] > Sent: 14 April 2011 13:19 > To: Elwell, John; Muthu ArulMozhi Perumal (mperumal); ietf@ietf.org > Cc: siprec@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [siprec] Last Call: > <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.txt> (Use Cases andRequirements for > SIP-based Media Recording (SIPREC)) toInformational RFC > > Actually REQ-022 and REQ-023 describing not only requirement > to synchronize between different media streams but more > importantly ability to relate them to real world (wall) > clock. It is not only important to playback them correctly > but also to know when it was said. > One example is continue trading after closing hour (even for > one second is not allowed) > > And if these media are synchronized to wall clock then they > are also synchronized between them thus I am not sure if we > need this additional requirement. > > Thanks > > Leon > > -----Original Message----- > From: siprec-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:siprec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Elwell, John > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 1:54 PM > To: Muthu ArulMozhi Perumal (mperumal); ietf@ietf.org > Cc: siprec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [siprec] Last Call: > <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.txt> (Use Cases andRequirements for > SIP-based Media Recording (SIPREC)) toInformational RFC > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: siprec-bounces@ietf.org > > [mailto:siprec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Muthu > ArulMozhi Perumal > > (mperumal) > > Sent: 14 April 2011 07:34 > > To: ietf@ietf.org > > Cc: siprec@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [siprec] Last Call: > > <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.txt> (Use Cases andRequirements for > > SIP-based Media Recording (SIPREC)) toInformational RFC > > > > I've one major comment. It draft discusses synchronization > between the > > recorded media streams and synchronized playback, which > seem important > > for certain applications: > > > > <snip> > > Some applications require the recording of more than one > media stream, > > possibly of different types. Media are synchronized, either > at storage > > or at playback. > > </snip> > > > > However, in the requirements section it doesn't seem REQ-022 and > > REQ-023 are all that are need and sufficient to achieve this with > > needed precision. So, I would suggest adding another requirement as > > follows: > > The mechanism MUST provide means for facilitating > synchronization of > > the recorded media streams and metadata either at storage or at > > playback. > > This includes, but not limited to, the information needed as per > > REQ-022 and REQ-023. > [JRE] This seems a reasonable addition. I wonder if the new > requirement (first sentence only) is sufficient as a > **replacement** for REQ-022 and REQ-023. On reading REQ-022 > and REQ-023 again, it is not so clear what their purpose was, > and they seem to be more like a solution than a requirement. > One purpose would certainly be that covered by Muthu's new > requirement. Was there any other purpose? > > John > > > > > A nitpick: > > Use Case 8 > > In cases where calls inside or between branches must be recorded, a > > centralized recording system in data centers together with > telephony > > infrastructure (e.g. PBX) me deployed. > > > > s/me/may be > > > > Muthu > > > > |-----Original Message----- > > |From: siprec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:siprec-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of The IESG > > |Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 6:20 PM > > |To: IETF-Announce > > |Cc: siprec@ietf.org > > |Subject: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.txt> > > (Use Cases > > andRequirements for SIP-based > > |Media Recording (SIPREC)) toInformational RFC > > | > > | > > |The IESG has received a request from the SIP Recording WG > (siprec) to > > |consider the following document: > > |- 'Use Cases and Requirements for SIP-based Media > Recording (SIPREC)' > > | <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.txt> as an Informational RFC > > | > > |The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, > and solicits > > |final comments on this action. Please send substantive > > comments to the > > |ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-04-20. Exceptionally, > > comments may > > be > > |sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > > |beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > | > > |The file can be obtained via > > |http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-siprec-req/ > > | > > |IESG discussion can be tracked via > > |http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-siprec-req/ > > | > > | > > | > > |No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > |_______________________________________________ > > |siprec mailing list > > |siprec@ietf.org > > |https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec > > _______________________________________________ > > siprec mailing list > > siprec@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec > > > _______________________________________________ > siprec mailing list > siprec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec >
- RE: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09… Muthu ArulMozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- RE: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09… Elwell, John
- RE: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09… Leon Portman
- RE: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09… Elwell, John
- RE: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09… Leon Portman
- RE: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09… Muthu ArulMozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- RE: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09… Elwell, John
- RE: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- RE: [siprec] Last Call:<draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- RE: [siprec] LastCall:<draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.t… Parthasarathi R (partr)
- RE: [siprec] LastCall:<draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.t… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- RE: [siprec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-siprec-req-09… Muthu ArulMozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- RE: [siprec] Last Call:<draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.… Leon Portman
- RE: [siprec] Last Call:<draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.… Parthasarathi R (partr)
- RE: [siprec] Last Call:<draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.… Elwell, John
- RE: [siprec] Last Call:<draft-ietf-siprec-req-09.… Muthu ArulMozhi Perumal (mperumal)