RE: [MEDIACTRL] Re: Requirements Comment

[<[e-mail]>]

Regarding

draft-dolly-xcon-mediacntrlframe-03.txt states the following
"REQ-MCP-11 - SIP/SDP SHALL be used to establish and modify RTP
connections to a Media Server"

I believe that requirement was stated partly because at the time it was
(apparently?) the view of the group that that was the case that really
mattered - certainly my view. I'm not against revisiting that, but I
think we want to be careful about specifically what cases we believe
we're covering. Not sure we want to be completely agnostic, i.e. that
the signaling/transport can be anything at all. (For example, inband
signaling somewhere in the path?)

cheers,

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Buko [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:47 AM
To: Eric Burger; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [MEDIACTRL] Re: Requirements Comment

Another quick example might be an H.323 AS.
It would use SIP only to establish the media control framework path.

Steve Buko 


|-----Original Message-----
|From: Steve Buko [mailto:[e-mail]]
|Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:38 PM
|To: Eric Burger; [e-mail]
|Subject: RE: [MEDIACTRL] Re: Requirements Comment
|
|IMO we need to keep the MCF (media control framework) and the MCP
(media
|control protocol) separate and as open as possible.
|
|I think there are multiple use cases here.  One that comes to mind is
|PSTN / ISUP, etc.
|In this scenario, RTP and SIP are not used for call control or media
|transport.  The AS will be managing the call control external to the
|MCF.  The AS will use the MCF and MCP to control the media server only.
|
|
|My view is that the MCF should not be defined to handle call control
|signaling.  The MCF should be defined only for the transport of the
MCP.
|
|The AS's call control signaling and media transport negotiation should
|be out of scope for this workgroup.
|
|
|
|Steve Buko
|
|
||-----Original Message-----
||From: Eric Burger [mailto:[e-mail]]
||Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:30 PM
||To: [e-mail]
||Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Re: Requirements Comment
||
||I missed that one. IMHO, the AS has no need nor right to know the RTP
||address of the endpoint nor the termination address of the media
|server.
||What is the use case?
||
||--
||Sent from my wireless e-mail device. Sorry if terse.  We all need
||lemonade: see <http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade> for what
||lemonade is.
||
||-----Original Message-----
||From: Steve Buko <[e-mail]>
||To: Eric Burger; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
||Sent: Tue Mar 20 06:16:38 2007
||Subject: Requirements Comment
||
||
||
||I have a general issue regarding our current set of requirements and
||thought it might be a good idea to get a thread going on this prior to
||our Thursday meeting.
||
||
||
||draft-even-media-server-req-02.txt
||<http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl/draft-even-media-server-
||req-02.txt>  states the following
||
||"10.  The MS shall supply the media addresses (RTP transport address)
||to be used to the AS"
||
||
||
||draft-dolly-xcon-mediacntrlframe-03.txt
||<http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl/draft-dolly-xcon-
||mediacntrlframe-03.txt>  states the following
||
||"REQ-MCP-11 - SIP/SDP SHALL be used to establish and modify RTP
||connections to a Media Server"
||
||
||
||
||
||In my view, we have two main problems to solve.
||
||1)     define a media control framework that will be used to transmit
a
||given media control protocol.
||
||2)    define a media control protocol used to control a media server.
||
||
||
||I agree that the media control framework should use SIP/SDP to specify
||the protocol / transport used to negotiation the TCP port and
||transmit/receive the media control protocol.
||
||
||
||However, I would offer that the media control protocol defined by this
||group should be ..
||
||1)     call control signaling agnostic
||
||2)    media transport agnostic
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||For this requirement ...
||
||draft-even-media-server-req-02.txt
||<http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl/draft-even-media-server-
||req-02.txt>  states the following
||
||"10.  The MS shall supply the media addresses (RTP transport address)
||to be used to the AS"
||
||I don't understand why the AS would need the media addresses and would
||like to think that the AS would like to control a media server that
may
||not be using RTP in all scenarios.
||
||
||
||For this requirement ...
||
||draft-dolly-xcon-mediacntrlframe-03.txt
||<http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl/draft-dolly-xcon-
||mediacntrlframe-03.txt>  states the following
||
||"REQ-MCP-11 - SIP/SDP SHALL be used to establish and modify RTP
||connections to a Media Server"
||
||I agree that SIP/SDP should be used to establish/negotiate the TCP
||port/address used for media control transport, however I don't think
||RTP comes into play from a media control framework perspective.
||
||
||
||
||
||My high level comment is that we should not limit the use of our media
||control protocol to media servers that only support SIP and RTP.
||
||
||
||
||
||Steve Buko
||
||
||
||______________________________________________________________________
_
||Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may
contain
||information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and
affiliated
||entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted
and/or
||legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
||individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the
intended
||recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately
||return this by email and then delete it.

_______________________________________________
MEDIACTRL mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl