RE: [MEDIACTRL] Re: Requirements Comment

["Even, Roni" <[e-mail]>]

Steve,
I think I see were the problem here. I also discussed it with Martin.

We can look at the requirements from two perspectives.

1. The full solution requirements. How do you achieve a system solution
2. Protocol only requirements.

My point of view was the full solution requirements. This does not mean that the protocol needs to solve it since the requirement can be addressed by other methods. Some of these system requirements can be addressed in different means using other protocols and the working group should not endorse one way to address it.

I think that we need to agree on what should the requirement cover - is it the protocol requirements or the system solution requirements.

In this specific case if we look at protocol than I assume that we do not need this requirement.
If we look at system solution requirement there need to be at least on way to do it.

My view is that we should have system solution but maybe we should mention that they are such.

Thanks
Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Buko [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:05 PM
> To: Even, Roni; Eric Burger; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [MEDIACTRL] Re: Requirements Comment
> 
> Right.  I think it all boils down to who owns this.
> My opinion is that this is not in scope for this group.  This is not
> specific to media control.
> 
> I really don't see this as being much different than a SIP AS running in
> 3PCC.  We don't need to define how an AS handles 3PCC and how it
> establishes the media.
> 
> In the SIP 3PCC example, the inbound SIP INVITE comes to the AS and it
> creates a new call leg to the MS with a separate INVITE.  The INVITE to
> the MS contains the SDP from the remote UA (or a modified version of it).
> In the end, the SDP in the 200OK from the MS is sent to the remote UA.
> Media flows between the remote UA and the MS.  I don't think the media
> control framework should try to define this process.
> 
> The media control framework should only define how the AS interacts with
> the MS to establish a control path.  The media control protocol should
> define the language used to control the media server using the media
> control framework.
> 
> 
> Steve Buko
> 
> 
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: Even, Roni [mailto:[e-mail]]
> |Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:55 PM
> |To: Steve Buko; Eric Burger; [e-mail]
> |Subject: RE: [MEDIACTRL] Re: Requirements Comment
> |
> |This is a good example.
> |
> |You have an h.323 call leg from the H.323 UA to the AS (H.225+H.245).
> |The AS uses SIP to the MS for media server control (I think we are not
> |defining media control but media server control).
> |
> |Now the H.323 UA will send an Open logical channel to the AS. The AS
> |needs to respond with a transport address for the media in the Open
> |Logical Channel ack. From where does the AS get this address. My view
> |that it need to get it from the MS and this is the reason for the
> |requirement.
> |
> |Roni
> |
> |
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Steve Buko [mailto:[e-mail]]
> |> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:47 PM
> |> 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