[Insipid] FW: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC metadata
"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Wed, 04 February 2015 17:05 UTC
Return-Path: <rmohanr@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CE91A8AF7 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:05:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.461
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_26=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Io_Y4C6xlh4R for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:05:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92FF61A8AC4 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:05:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=45168; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1423069554; x=1424279154; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=uTgv2jFvjw9UNB2Pyy088/FEISWz0Z3ZNm7+lIZxlXk=; b=Ucn2ajvXOEQYGImTly1V2CzfAqOrRufR7NjaPencu0QwVfI9C0FM8m1i 1B8dX1rxU1iOavjHuIg5qNfLvHOrj4iUGzcUAaCPBfDyuiypciFHBE/9b YNqthqQHkeYsq3UlkoaECg9EZ86Z4MMxByJftiiUOQ0ZTugt8hdcoAT8o k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArIFAFNQ0lStJA2J/2dsb2JhbABagwZSWQSCfb8ZGQqFJ0oCHIEAQwEBAQEBfYQMAQEBBAEBARcaMwEGBAIRBAIBBgIRAwEBAQEEIwUCAiULFAcBAQUDAgQKCQkSBIgODaNInGQGlmIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARiBG417EAIBNCIGglyBRwWPEIVeg0uBF4MDgkaIRoM9IoICHIFQbwGBAyQcfgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,519,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="393371242"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2015 17:05:52 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t14H5pas007008 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <insipid@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:05:51 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.51]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([fe80::200:5efe:173.37.183.34%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:05:51 -0600
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC metadata
Thread-Index: AQHQQJxp9YgO2WBMyUKCjPQlSISwU5zheS0A
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:05:51 +0000
Message-ID: <D0F84ED0.216E1%rmohanr@cisco.com>
References: <D05ADC79.15039%rmohanr@cisco.com> <543565F1.30903@alum.mit.edu> <D05B66C4.15196%rmohanr@cisco.com> <D05B6BDA.151C6%rmohanr@cisco.com> <009601cfe41f$571951f0$054bf5d0$@co.in> <5437372D.4070406@alum.mit.edu> <D05D40C7.15334%rmohanr@cisco.com> <D07AD822.17A37%rmohanr@cisco.com> <5454F37A.2020308@alum.mit.edu> <D07D214D.17AD8%rmohanr@cisco.com> <D08274E2.18874%rmohanr@cisco.com> <545CFA68.3070705@alum.mit.edu> <D0864944.18B0B%rmohanr@cisco.com> <D08628AA.37194%eckelcu@cisco.com> <D0878E4A.18D01%rmohanr@cisco.com> <D0F5847F.20D58%rmohanr@cisco.com> <84EA53DF-C69B-4707-988A-BC81B6D9DB0A@cisco.com> <D0F66FF5.21169%rmohanr@cisco.com> <D0F8476C.2164B%rmohanr@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0F8476C.2164B%rmohanr@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [10.65.62.209]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <6134E94FACD83E41B39888FF1F853C4A@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/fqYGLW0oTFNqhuezEJmnYb4e7_A>
Subject: [Insipid] FW: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC metadata
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <insipid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid/>
List-Post: <mailto:insipid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:06:00 -0000
We are adding session-ID to SIPREC Metadata draft(draft-ietf-siprec-metadata) and below is the proposed approach. If you have any comments, please send to siprec@ietf.org Thanks, Ram -----Original Message----- From: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com> Date: Wednesday, 4 February 2015 10:32 pm To: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>, "siprec@ietf.org" <siprec@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC metadata >Here is proposal and text that I plan to add to SIPREC Metadata draft. >Please do suggest any comments/inputs. > >Proposed XML Schema for session-ID > >1) Define a new XML element with name “sipSessionID” which would be a >unrestricted string (type is xs:string). > > >2) The session-ID will be a child XML element inside <session> element of >Metadata. The Metadata schema would allow a CS > to have zero or more session-ID elements. More than one session-ID is >primarily to accommodate conference use-cases. > For e.g; > >3) The val of the sipSessionID element MUST follow the ABNF format of >session-id-value as defined in section 5 of > [I-D.ietf-insipid-session-id]. > >4) If there are changes in CS, the same will be indicated in the metadata >snapshot from SRC to SRS and this might include > sipSessionID changes as well. For e.g; > Assume A and B are two participants in a CS and a SRC (B2BUA) in the CS >reports the session id as > <sipSessionID>A;remote=B</sipSessionID> a time t1 to SRS > At a later time if there is transfer in the same CS and B drops and C >joins, then the SRC(B2BUA) reports the session id as > <sipSessionID>A;remote=C</sipSessionID> at time t2 to SRS > > and so on. > >5) It is possible that a SRC reports a session id having only one half >(like <sipSessionID>D;remote=0</sipSessionID> > > >6)The order in which the SRC reports the sesssion-ID should not matter. If >the SRC(say EP1) is one of the ends of the CS, then it would > report the session id as EP1;remote=EP2. If the SRC is a B2BUA, >depending on which side of the B2BUA the recording is being done it would > report the session id as it sees. > > >Let me know if any has any concerns in including the session-Id and the >behaviour as mentioned above in the metadata draft. > >Regards, >Ram > >-----Original Message----- >From: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com> >Date: Tuesday, 3 February 2015 1:30 pm >To: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com> >Cc: "siprec@ietf.org" <siprec@ietf.org> >Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC metadata > >>Hi Gonzalo, >> >>Thanks for the review. >> >>Sure. Will change the name. I am inclined to go with “sipSessionId” as >>the >>XML element name and will stick to it unless some one else has a better >>suggestion. >> >>Regards, >>Ram >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com> >>Date: Tuesday, 3 February 2015 12:28 pm >>To: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com> >>Cc: "siprec@ietf.org" <siprec@ietf.org> >>Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC metadata >> >>>Hi Ram - >>> >>>I have one objection: we really shouldn't use 'insipid' as the name for >>>the identifier since that has no significance aside from being the name >>>of the WG. You won't find that name referenced in any of the documents >>>defining the end-to-end session identifier. I'd suggest we find an >>>alternate tag that's a bit more descriptive. >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Gonzalo >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 2, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) <rmohanr@cisco.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> Per the discussions in IETF 91 I am going ahead with the following >>>> approach: >>>> >>>> 1) Define a new XML element with name “insipid” which would be a >>>> unrestricted string (type is xs:string). >>>> >>>> The XML for <session> element will be modified to have insipid as a >>>>new >>>> XML element (where we can have zero or more occurrences of insipid in >>>>a >>>>CS) >>>> >>>> <xs:complexType name="session"> >>>> <xs:sequence> >>>> <xs:element name=“insipid” type=xs:string” minOccurs=“0” >>>> maxOccurs=“unbounded”/> ――――> newly added >>>> <xs:element name="reason" type="tns:reason" minOccurs=“0" >>>> maxOccurs="unbounded"/> >>>> <xs:element name="group-ref" type=“xs:base64Binary" minOccurs="0" >>>> maxOccurs="1"/> >>>> <xs:element name="start-time" type=“xs:dateTime" minOccurs="0" >>>> maxOccurs="1"/> >>>> <xs:element name="stop-time" type=“xs:dateTime" minOccurs="0" >>>> maxOccurs="1"/> >>>> <xs:any namespace='##other’ minOccurs=‘0' maxOccurs=‘unbounded' >>>> processContents='lax'/> >>>> </xs:sequence> >>>> <xs:attribute name="session_id" type="xs:base64Binary" >>>> use="required"/> >>>> </xs:complexType> >>>> >>>> Will add following normative text: >>>> >>>> "Each Communication Session (CS) MAY have zero or more insipid >>>> identifiers. When present, the identifier MUST follow the syntax >>>> defined in section 5 of [I-D.ietf-insipid-session-id]. >>>> >>>> “ >>>> >>>> Let me know if there are any objections. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ram >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com> >>>> Date: Tuesday, 11 November 2014 10:01 am >>>> To: "siprec@ietf.org" <siprec@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" >>>> <eckelcu@cisco.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC metadata >>>> >>>>> Hi Charles, >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> >>>>> Date: Tuesday, 11 November 2014 12:05 am >>>>> To: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com>, Paul Kyzivat >>>>> <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "siprec@ietf.org" <siprec@ietf.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC metadata >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/9/14, 7:47 PM, "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Inline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> >>>>>>> Date: Friday, 7 November 2014 10:29 pm >>>>>>> To: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com>, "siprec@ietf.org" >>>>>>> <siprec@ietf.org> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC metadata >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11/7/14 3:06 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote: >>>>>>>>> Here is the updated schema after incorporating the changes below. >>>>>>>>> With >>>>>>>>> this we can allow zero or more instances of SessionId in session >>>>>>>>> element. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Updated schema with the proposed change: >>>>>>>>> <xs:complexType name="session"> >>>>>>>>> <xs:sequence> >>>>>>>>> <xs:element name=“sessionID” type=tns:sessionID” minOccurs=“0” >>>>>>>>> maxOccurs=“unbounded”/> >>>>>>>>> <xs:element name="reason" type="tns:reason" minOccurs="0" >>>>>>>>> maxOccurs="unbounded"/> >>>>>>>>> <xs:element name="group-ref" type="xs:base64Binary" >>>>>>>>> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> >>>>>>>>> <xs:element name="start-time" type="xs:dateTime" >>>>>>>>> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> >>>>>>>>> <xs:element name="stop-time" type="xs:dateTime" >>>>>>>>> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> >>>>>>>>> <xs:any namespace='##other' >>>>>>>>> minOccurs='0' >>>>>>>>> maxOccurs='unbounded' >>>>>>>>> processContents='lax'/> >>>>>>>>> </xs:sequence> >>>>>>>>> <xs:attribute name="session_id" type="xs:base64Binary" >>>>>>>>> use="required"/> >>>>>>>>> </xs:complexType> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That seems ok. (Though I am still troubled by the name.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah. I don’t know what better name we can give. Perhaps >>>>>>>SIPSessionID ? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, because the insipid session ID is not restricted to being used >>>>>>for >>>>>> SIP >>>>>> only. >>>>> >>>>> Ok. I will leave the name as “SessionID” only. >>>>> >>>>>> That said, being able to correlate the SessionID with the SIP dialog >>>>>> seems >>>>>> useful. I’ll leave it to others to state if they think it is really >>>>>> necessary. >>>>> >>>>> I had this question in my earlier email but have not seen any >>>>>feedback >>>>>in >>>>> the WG so far. Since a CS can have multiple SIP dialogs the <session> >>>>>XML >>>>> can potentially carry multiple SessionIDs from SRC to SRS. I would >>>>>like to >>>>> hear (especially from SRS folks) on whether is a value in providing >>>>>some >>>>> information that will co-relate the SIP dialog and its related >>>>>SessionID. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ram >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Charles >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here sessionID is a simpleElement of base type xs:string but >>>>>>>>>with >>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>> restrictions as defined below: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <xs:simpleType name="sessionID"> >>>>>>>>> <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> >>>>>>>>> <xs:pattern >>>>>>>>>value="([0-9a-f]{32}(*);remote=[0-9a-f]{32}(0..1))"/> >>>>>>>>> </xs:restriction> >>>>>>>>> </xs:simpleType> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I forget if there are cases where the remote part is absent. There >>>>>>>>used >>>>>>>> to be, but I think maybe they got changed to require insertion of >>>>>>>> zeros. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The sessionID draft abnf says it can be null or have a uuid string. >>>>>>> However the text below in the same section says the sender would >>>>>>>have to >>>>>>> insert 32 zeros as remote-uuid. So I think it will be present but >>>>>>>will >>>>>>> have either a valid value or zeros. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems wasteful to include the "remote=", but maybe it is easier >>>>>>>>to >>>>>>>> just lift the entire thing from the sip message. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. That’s the idea. We have to just copy the entire contents of >>>>>>> SessionID header (excluding the “SessionID:” part) and just send it >>>>>>>in >>>>>>> XML. The above definition of schema is to have a restriction to >>>>>>>have >>>>>>>a >>>>>>> specific pattern, other wise we can just leave it as xs:string in >>>>>>>which >>>>>>> it can take any string. I would assume SRS would really not >>>>>>>validate >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> value in this field. Rather it would use it for relating >>>>>>>/co-relating >>>>>>> when >>>>>>> it talks to other devices that support sessionID. If an SRS needs >>>>>>>to >>>>>>> validate then there is a value in having a specific pattern >>>>>>>otherwise >>>>>>> xs:string is also good enough. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Ram >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or should we simply leave it as xs:string in which case there >>>>>>>>>would >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> any type needed. It would just be >>>>>>>>> <xs:element name=“sessionID” type=xs:string” minOccurs=“0” >>>>>>>>> maxOccurs=“unbounded”/> >>>>>>>>> Included in <session> element. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't have a strong preference. Lets see how the discussion >>>>>>>>goes. >>>>>>>> If it had no structure, we would still need to say exactly what it >>>>>>>> included. (That it doesn't include the "Session-ID: " part.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let me know your thoughts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Ram >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com> >>>>>>>>> Date: Monday, 3 November 2014 1:49 pm >>>>>>>>> To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "siprec@ietf.org" >>>>>>>>> <siprec@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC metadata >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Inline >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> >>>>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, 1 November 2014 8:21 pm >>>>>>>>>> To: "siprec@ietf.org" <siprec@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC metadata >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/1/14 9:15 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Here is a initial proposal for including INSIPID sessionID in >>>>>>>>>>>> metadata >>>>>>>>>>>> XML schema. Since a CS is a logical entity and can have >>>>>>>>>>>>multiple >>>>>>>>>>>> SIP >>>>>>>>>>>> dialogs as Paul said we should potentially allow a Session XML >>>>>>>>>>>> element >>>>>>>>>>>> to have 1 or more SessionIDs in them. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So I suggest we can include >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) SessionID (with the XML element name as “SessionID”) as a >>>>>>>>>>>>child >>>>>>>>>>>> element inside <session> XML element). >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) An instance of <session> XML element must have atleast 1 >>>>>>>>>>>> <sessionID> >>>>>>>>>>>> element and MAY have more as well >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You want to *require* a SessionID????? Why? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My initial thought was that CS would always have atleast one >>>>>>>>>> Session-Id. >>>>>>>>>> But I realise we can’t guarantee that. So its right to change it >>>>>>>>>>to >>>>>>>>>> “zero >>>>>>>>>> or more” instances in the XML. I will change this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A question here which I had asked the group in my previous mail >>>>>>>>>>as >>>>>>>>>> well >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In case a CS has multiple SIP dialogs, it can potentially have >>>>>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>>>>> SessionIds as well. Is it sufficient if we just send them as it >>>>>>>>>>is >>>>>>>>>> (multiple sessionID XML elements inside <session> element) to >>>>>>>>>>SRS >>>>>>>>>>? >>>>>>>>>> OR >>>>>>>>>> Do >>>>>>>>>> we need to send the relation of SessionId to its corresponding >>>>>>>>>>SIP >>>>>>>>>> dialog >>>>>>>>>> (as the SRC sees) ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For e.g: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <session session_id="hVpd7YQgRW2nD22h7q60JQ=="> >>>>>>>>>>>> <start-time>2010-12-16T23:41:07Z</start-time> >>>>>>>>>>>> <sessionID>i1Pz3to5hGk8fuXl+PbwCw==</sessionID> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> </session> >>>>>>>>>>>> *3) A question - Since a CS can have multiple Session Ids (due >>>>>>>>>>>>to >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> fact that a CS can have multiple SIP dialogs) is there a need >>>>>>>>>>>>to >>>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> which SIP dialog a SessionID belongs to ? * >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Schema updates: >>>>>>>>>>>> Current Schema for session in ver 16 of draft >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:complexType name="session"> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:sequence> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:element name="reason" type="tns:reason" minOccurs="0" >>>>>>>>>>>> maxOccurs="unbounded"/> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:element name="group-ref" type="xs:base64Binary" >>>>>>>>>>>> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:element name="start-time" type="xs:dateTime" >>>>>>>>>>>> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:element name="stop-time" type="xs:dateTime" >>>>>>>>>>>> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:any namespace='##other' >>>>>>>>>>>> minOccurs='0' >>>>>>>>>>>> maxOccurs='unbounded' >>>>>>>>>>>> processContents='lax'/> >>>>>>>>>>>> </xs:sequence> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:attribute name="session_id" type="xs:base64Binary" >>>>>>>>>>>> use="required"/> >>>>>>>>>>>> </xs:complexType> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Updated schema with the proposed change: >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:complexType name="session"> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:sequence> >>>>>>>>>>>> * <xs:element name=“sessionID” type=xs:base64Binary” >>>>>>>>>>>> minOccurs=“1”* >>>>>>>>>>>> * maxOccurs=“unbounded”/>* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why is it base64? I see no advantage. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes. It should have been hexBinary. But I think even that won’t >>>>>>>>>>fit >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> the type defined for SessionID. So perhaps we need to define a >>>>>>>>>>new >>>>>>>>>> data >>>>>>>>>> type whose values is as defined in the SessionId draft. >>>>>>>>>>Regarding >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> remote part I see it is optional and may or may not be present. >>>>>>>>>>I >>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>> have to see how to represent it in the schema. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The format is: Session-id: >>>>>>>>>>> <hex-local-part>;remote=<hex-remote-part>. >>>>>>>>>>> So somehow the local and remote parts need to be captured. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, it is getting very confusing having <session-id> and >>>>>>>>>>> <sessionID>, >>>>>>>>>>> especially when <sessionID> contains the encoding of a >>>>>>>>>>>Session-ID >>>>>>>>>>> header >>>>>>>>>>> field. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes. I don’t know what other name we can give to this XML >>>>>>>>>>element. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> to some thing that says its SessionID and the value of that XML >>>>>>>>>> element >>>>>>>>>> has to be value of SessionID header >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I will check on how to represent the remote and local in the >>>>>>>>>>Schema. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Ram >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately I see no easy solution to this ambiguity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:element name="reason" type="tns:reason" minOccurs="0" >>>>>>>>>>>> maxOccurs="unbounded"/> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:element name="group-ref" type="xs:base64Binary" >>>>>>>>>>>> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:element name="start-time" type="xs:dateTime" >>>>>>>>>>>> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:element name="stop-time" type="xs:dateTime" >>>>>>>>>>>> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:any namespace='##other' >>>>>>>>>>>> minOccurs='0' >>>>>>>>>>>> maxOccurs='unbounded' >>>>>>>>>>>> processContents='lax'/> >>>>>>>>>>>> </xs:sequence> >>>>>>>>>>>> <xs:attribute name="session_id" type="xs:base64Binary" >>>>>>>>>>>> use="required"/> >>>>>>>>>>>> </xs:complexType> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know your comments/suggestions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ram >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:rmohanr@cisco.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, 10 October 2014 7:53 am >>>>>>>>>>>> To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>>, >>>>>>>>>>>> Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:partha@parthasarathi.co.in>>, "siprec@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:siprec@ietf.org>" <siprec@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:siprec@ietf.org>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC metadata >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, 10 October 2014 7:02 am >>>>>>>>>>>> To: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:partha@parthasarathi.co.in>>, Cisco Employee >>>>>>>>>>>> <rmohanr@cisco.com <mailto:rmohanr@cisco.com>>, >>>>>>>>>>>> "siprec@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:siprec@ietf.org>" <siprec@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:siprec@ietf.org>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIPREC >>>>>>>>>>>>metadata >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> One thing to keep in mind is that a single siprec >>>>>>>>>>>>session >>>>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>>>> correspond >>>>>>>>>>>> to multiple sip dialogs. (E.g. when a conference focus >>>>>>>>>>>>is >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> SRC.) So >>>>>>>>>>>> we should probably allow multiple insipid session-ids. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Good point. Agree that we may have such a scenario where >>>>>>>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>>>>>>> insipid >>>>>>>>>>>> session-ids may need to be carried in the metadata. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ram >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Alternately CS groups might be used for that. In >>>>>>>>>>>>*some* >>>>>>>>>>>> cases a >>>>>>>>>>>> CS group >>>>>>>>>>>> might correspond to a *half* insipid session-id. But >>>>>>>>>>>>that >>>>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>>>> not be >>>>>>>>>>>> the case. I doubt we need to talk about that. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/14 8:15 PM, Parthasarathi R wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ram, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Paul & you for adding optional XML >>>>>>>>>>>> element >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> carry INSIPID >>>>>>>>>>>> session-id. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We need to clearly explain the interaction of CS >>>>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>>>> id >>>>>>>>>>>> with INSIPID >>>>>>>>>>>> session-id as INSIPID session-id shall act as CS >>>>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>>>> ID >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>>> Updating >>>>>>>>>>>> example draft with the usage of these unique-id >>>>>>>>>>>>for >>>>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>>>> transfer >>>>>>>>>>>> scenario >>>>>>>>>>>> will provide better clarity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>> Partha >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: siprec [mailto:siprec-bounces@ietf.org] >>>>>>>>>>>>On >>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf >>>>>>>>>>>> Of Ram Mohan R >>>>>>>>>>>> (rmohanr) >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:28 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: Paul Kyzivat; siprec@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:siprec@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in >>>>>>>>>>>> SIPREC >>>>>>>>>>>> metadata >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To add to below, One issue I see by mapping >>>>>>>>>>>> INSIPID >>>>>>>>>>>> Session_id to CS >>>>>>>>>>>> xml >>>>>>>>>>>> id is - when a SRS receives metadata it will >>>>>>>>>>>>not >>>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>> if the received >>>>>>>>>>>> id >>>>>>>>>>>> in CS is INSIPID session_id or SRC generated >>>>>>>>>>>> UUID. >>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> important for >>>>>>>>>>>> SRS >>>>>>>>>>>> to know this, since INSIPID session_id scope >>>>>>>>>>>>is >>>>>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>>>> larger and the SRS >>>>>>>>>>>> may want to use that Session_id for some other >>>>>>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ram >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:rmohanr@cisco.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, 8 October 2014 10:13 pm >>>>>>>>>>>> To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>>, >>>>>>>>>>>>"siprec@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:siprec@ietf.org>" >>>>>>>>>>>> <siprec@ietf.org <mailto:siprec@ietf.org>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in >>>>>>>>>>>> SIPREC >>>>>>>>>>>> metadata >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please see inline >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, 8 October 2014 9:57 pm >>>>>>>>>>>> To: "siprec@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:siprec@ietf.org>" >>>>>>>>>>>> <siprec@ietf.org <mailto:siprec@ietf.org>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID >>>>>>>>>>>>in >>>>>>>>>>>> SIPREC >>>>>>>>>>>> metadata >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/14 2:45 AM, Ram Mohan R >>>>>>>>>>>>(rmohanr) >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We had discussed this in the past >>>>>>>>>>>> (see >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> archive email - >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid/current/msg00285.h >>>>>>>>>>>>t >>>>>>>>>>>>m >>>>>>>>>>>>l) >>>>>>>>>>>> however at that time since INSIPID >>>>>>>>>>>>WG >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> Session-ID document was >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> early >>>>>>>>>>>> stage we deferred including >>>>>>>>>>>> Session-ID >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> the metadata. Now that >>>>>>>>>>>> Session-ID is a mature document I >>>>>>>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> is good to include the >>>>>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>>>>> in the Metadata XML as part of CS. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My initial thought is to include >>>>>>>>>>>>it >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> element of CS. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know your thoughts ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO we can't depend on the session id >>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>> present, so we can't use >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> as one of our identifiers. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Agree. What I am saying if a CS has >>>>>>>>>>>> INSIPID >>>>>>>>>>>> Session_id present >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and a >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> SRC who is part of that CS happens to read >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> id, >>>>>>>>>>>> then it can pass >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it in >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the metadata to SRS. IMO the SRC need not >>>>>>>>>>>> worry >>>>>>>>>>>> about how the INSIPID >>>>>>>>>>>> session_id is derived. All we need is a >>>>>>>>>>>> carrier(field) to carry the >>>>>>>>>>>> received Session_id to SRS. Note this is >>>>>>>>>>>> independent >>>>>>>>>>>> of the ids we >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> have in >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the XML. The ids we have will continue to >>>>>>>>>>>>be >>>>>>>>>>>> present. I don¹t see a >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to link. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> SRCs that want to coordinate, and that >>>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> are in an >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> environment >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that uses session-id *could* derive >>>>>>>>>>>>their >>>>>>>>>>>> IDs >>>>>>>>>>>> based on the session- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> id. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well I don¹t know if we want to say that >>>>>>>>>>>>and >>>>>>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>>>>>> some dependancy. I >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> open to have that but think it can create >>>>>>>>>>>> confusion >>>>>>>>>>>> as we need to >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> define >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> both the cases (when Session_id present >>>>>>>>>>>>and >>>>>>>>>>>> when it >>>>>>>>>>>> is not). Rather I >>>>>>>>>>>> would think we should leave the current CS >>>>>>>>>>>>Id >>>>>>>>>>>> scope >>>>>>>>>>>> as is. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We wouldn't have to standardize that, >>>>>>>>>>>>but >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> would only work with >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> SRCs >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that have an agreement. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We could also allow the session-id to >>>>>>>>>>>>be >>>>>>>>>>>> added >>>>>>>>>>>> as an optional element >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the metadata. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes that is what I was coming to. We need >>>>>>>>>>>>a >>>>>>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> metadata >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (possibly a >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> child XML element inside <session> >>>>>>>>>>>>element) >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> carry INSIPID >>>>>>>>>>>> session_id of CS ( if present in CS) as is >>>>>>>>>>>>to >>>>>>>>>>>> SRS. >>>>>>>>>>>> An SRS may use it >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> relating sessions or for whatever it >>>>>>>>>>>>needs. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Ram >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That wouldn't cause two SRCs in the >>>>>>>>>>>>same >>>>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> choose >>>>>>>>>>>> the same siprec id for the call, but >>>>>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>>>> SRS >>>>>>>>>>>> could then correlate >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> siprec mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> siprec@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>><mailto:siprec@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> siprec mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> siprec@ietf.org <mailto:siprec@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> siprec mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> siprec@ietf.org <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >
- [Insipid] FW: [siprec] Carrying Session-ID in SIP… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)