Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt
"MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS" <gm3472@att.com> Tue, 22 December 2009 01:56 UTC
Return-Path: <gm3472@att.com>
X-Original-To: mediactrl@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mediactrl@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D943A6832 for <mediactrl@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:56:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OduGkJTsEIVv for <mediactrl@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:56:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com (mail146.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CEC3A67A5 for <mediactrl@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:56:30 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: gm3472@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1261446973!16891262!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146]
Received: (qmail 13882 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2009 01:56:14 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-6.tower-146.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Dec 2009 01:56:14 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBM1u9bZ025815 for <mediactrl@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:56:09 -0500
Received: from gaalpa1msgusr7b.ugd.att.com (gaalpa1msgusr7b.ugd.att.com [135.53.26.16]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBM1u7FQ025803 for <mediactrl@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:56:07 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:56:07 -0500
Message-ID: <2F41EF28ED42A5489E41742244C9117C01B711D0@gaalpa1msgusr7b.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B2773C6.3080106@ns-technologies.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt
Thread-Index: Acp9elK8SiTcPiBpRG2phXef8Gt/QwFLLW0A
References: <4B2773C6.3080106@ns-technologies.com>
From: "MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS" <gm3472@att.com>
To: Chris Boulton <chris@ns-technologies.com>, mediactrl@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt
X-BeenThere: mediactrl@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media Control WG Discussion List <mediactrl.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mediactrl>
List-Post: <mailto:mediactrl@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:56:33 -0000
Hi Chris and Lorenzo, Firstly, thank you very much for all your work on this draft. Looking fairly complete! Below are comments from me. Unfortunately I won't be much help on sanity checking sections 6 and 7. Hopefully others will be. I'll be on vacation now through Jan. 1 and won't be looking at email much, so no rush to react to my comments. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays/Happy New Year, br, Gary --- GAM Comments below --- >> General comments below << 1) For In-line, how does the AS know the identity of the MS for purposes of establishing a mediactrl Control Channel to it? I don't think this described anywhere, and it is an important point to cover conspicuously. (I do see a sentence in the para after Figure 8 that seems to say at least for In-line an AS could send a Control dialog to MRB, so MRB would select a MS resource for that; but if so, it raises more questions for me, like which comes first, or how you guarantee that a Control request and the corresponding call leg request end up at the same MS resource.) 2) For In-line, in the case of conferencing, how does the MRB know to send legs of the same conference to the same MS resource? I would think by remembering the conference ID supplied in the SIP for the first leg it sees. This should be described. (Not needed for Query MRB). 3) The required/optional aspect of attributes on the Consumer interface is absent in this draft. I had thought the conclusion of the last meeting (IETF 76) was to include it. >> Specific sections comments below << 1) Section 1 Intro 1st paragraph. Say "selection" instead of "location". > Because generally location is taken to mean actual location in some sense, which isn't what is intended here. 2) Section 1 Intro, para above Figure 3, add words ... "In this model there are a number (greater than 1) of application servers *, possibly supporting dissimilar applications,* controlling a single media server." > Because while the draft acknowledges MS resources are not necessarily homogeneous, nowhere does it yet say likewise for applications/ASes, and that's an important point. 3) In Abstract and Section 1, instead of "1:M and M:M" say either "1:Many and Many:Many" or "1:M and M:N" > Because implication is generally that M stands for an arbitrary number, but then M:M would imply same number of AS and MS, which we don't mean. 4) Section 2, Media Resource Broker MRB term. Change description to A logical entity that is responsible for both collection of appropriate published Media Server (MS) information and selecting appropriate MS resources on behalf of consuming entities. > Because the current description says "... and supplying appropriate MS information to consuming entities", which is isn't really to the point at least for In-Line use. 5) Section 2, Query MRB, change "location" to "address" > Because 'location' is tended to mean actual location as in presence/location and/or as in media-server-location 6) Section 2, In-line MRB, change description to An instantiation of an MRB (See definition) that directly receives requests on the signalling path. There is no separate query. > Because present description says "decision making process is totally delegated to the MRB" which a good characterization because (a) even for Query MRB, it's the MRB that decides/picks an MS resource and (b) the AS can provide the same kind of information with IAMM In-line as for Query. 7) Section 3, para 3, say "selection decisions" instead of "routing decisions". 8) Section 4, para 4. Revise that para to Please note that there may be additional information that it is desirable for the MRB to have for purposes of selecting an MS resource, such as resource allocation rules across different applications, planned or unplanned downtime of Media Server resources, the planned addition of future Media Server resources, or MS resource capacity models. How the MRB acquires such information is outside the scope of this document. > Because the real point is that there are additional things the MRB might want to know about MS resources to factor into its decision making process. It's not about what else the AS might want to know. 9) Section 4.1. At the very end of the section, last paragraph, add the sentence "Additionally, with Query MRB, the MRB is not in the signaling path between the AS and the selected MS resource." > Because this is a useful distinction between Query and In-line to highlight. 9a) Section 4.2, first para, revise to The "In-line" MRB is architecturally different from the "Query" model that was discussed in the previous section. The Concept of a separate "Media Server Consumer Interface" disappears. The client of the MRB simply uses the media server control and media dialog signalling to involve the MRB. This type of deployment is illustrated in Figure 8. > Because the current para talks about offloading the decision making process, but that's the MRB role for Query or In-line, so isn't a distinction. (Also, it's Media Resource Consumer Interface, not Media Server Consumer Interface.) 10) Section 4.2, the two paragraphs below Figure 8. Revise what is currently there to The Media Servers still use the 'Media Server Publishing Interface' to convey capabilities and resources to the MRB - as illustrated by (1). The media server Control and Media dialogs are sent to the MRB (2) which then selects an appropriate Media Server (3) and would stay in the signaling path between the AS and the MS resource for those dialogs. In-line MRB can be split into two distinct logical roles which can be applied on a per request basis. They are: In-line Unaware MRB Mode (IUMM): Allows an MRB to act on behalf of clients requiring media services who are not aware of an MRB or its operation. In this case the AS does not provide explicit information on the kind of MS resource it needs (as in Section 5.2) and the MRB is left to deduce it by potentially inspecting other information in the request from the AS; for example, SDP content, or address of the requesting AS, or additional Request-URI parameters as per RFC 4240. In-line Aware MRB Mode (IAMM): Allows an MRB to act on behalf of clients requiring media services who are aware of an MRB and its operation. In particular it allows the AS to explicitly the convey the same kinds of MS characteristics desired as does the Query MRB mode (as in Section 5.2). In either role, the MRB would deduce that the selected MS resources are no longer needed when the AS terminates the corresponding dialog. > Because some of the current description in the first of the paragraph really only applies to IUMM and not IAMM - i.e., about what the MRB knows; and because the "decision making" on MS resource selection is always the role of the MRB whether for Query or either flavor of In-line. 11) Section 5.1, para 2, revise it to As already anticipated in the introduction, the MRB view of MS resource availability will in practice be approximate - i.e., partial and imperfect. The MRB Publish interface does not provide an exhaustive view of current MS resource consumption, the MS may in some cases provide a best-effort computed view of resource consumption parameters conveyed in the Publish interface (e.g., DSP's with a fixed number of streams versus GPU's with CPU availability), there may be licensing constraints not factored in (e.g., even if lots of CPU and memory are available, licensing or other configuration elements may restrict the number of stream types), and MS resource information may only be reported periodically over the Publish interface to MRB. Nevertheless, despite such limitations and with the aid of good engineering the MRB can still perform its function well. > Because - seemed could benefit from better wording. I disagree about the part that the only way an AS could be guaranteed of a specific resource is "to reserve it by establishing a session" ... even that doesn't absolutely guarantee the entire desired set of resources will be available when needed. And seemed good to add some words to the effect that despite the MRB's approximate view, it can still do a good job. And I didn't think that the observation about reporting of resource availability versus predictive resource allocation was relevant or helpful to the primary theme of this paragraph. 12) Section 5.1, para 3. I think this para (copied below as currently written for the reader's convenience here) needs some clarification, but I don't have a specific proposal because I'm not sure what the intent is. If the intent is to say that ASes can figure out information on MS resource utilization by in effect making queries of MRB, I would argue that is exceedingly awkward and limited, and not worth mentioning. Or if ASes are thought of as hostile, I would worry about worse things like requesting resources they don't need, and thereby tying them up from MRB's point of view. If the intent is that given the use of the Publish interface there is the possibility of some interloper entity other than MRB of using the interface and finding out stuff, then the para should be clarified in that direction. It is also worth noting that, while the scope of the MRB is definitely on providing interested Application Servers with the available resources, the MRB also allows for the retrieval of information about the currently occupied resources. While this is of course a relevant piece of information (e.g. for monitoring purposes), such a functionality inevitably raises security considerations, and implementations should take this into account. See Section 8 for more details. 13) 5.2.2, first bullet under 2nd para - I don't understand why the application/sdp part is needed. 14) 5.2.3 bullet on <action> part about "If the information is identical as the existing request, the MRB will attempt a session refresh." What does that mean? Needs clarification. 15) 5.2.5.1.1, part about expires:, "If the lease is refreshed before expiry, the MRB will re-claim the resources and they will no longer be guaranteed." -- I think this is meant to say "If the lease is NOT refreshed ..." ? 16) 5.2.5.1.1, Editor's note at end of section as to whether the SIP URI is sufficient, I don't have any ideas about what else is needed, so have nothing to suggest, other than to ask whether this single SIP URI is one and the same for sending call legs to the MS and for establishing a control channel? Practically, is there some value in allowing for separate URIs for those purposes? 17) Section 5.3.1, very last sentence, " The techniques used for selecting an appropriate Media Server by an MRB acting in IUMM is outside the scope of this document." - I would think this statement applies to any kind of MRB, so should be generalized and placed further up front in the document, perhaps the beginning part of Section 3. 18) Section 5.3.2 on IAMM. I would think that there are a few items from the Consumer interface that don't apply to the IAMM case. Or if they are used, then I think need more description (I at least wouldn't be clear on just how they would get used without getting into problems). Specifically, - the ability to update/change a prior resource request - the ability to ask for multiple ports (in so many words) at least in the IVR case - does the lease mechanism apply? is the client required to renew? MRB knows the call is still up if it's in the signaling path >> Editorial nits below << 1) Be consistent of use of MRB Publish interface or MRB Publishing interface. 2) 5.1.1.2 para 3, "updating/removing" instead of "update/remove" 3) 5.1.4.4 "which represents" instead of 'which representing" 4) 5.1.4.5 "number of RTP sessions' instead of "number of RTP session" 5) 5.1.4.6 "which represents" instead of 'which representing" 6) 5.1.4.11 "can" instead of "cane" 7) 5.1.3.14 "media server supports." instead of 'media server support." 8) 5.1.3.19 "... a blue or green one." instead of "... a blue or green." 9) 5.2.3 "in Section 7 and Section 7" --> "in Section 5.2 and Section 7" ? 10) 5.2.4.1.1.1 under seq: "information its use" --> "information about its use" 11) 5.2.5.1.1, under expires: "that the media resources reserved" --> "that the media resources are reserved" -----Original Message----- From: mediactrl-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mediactrl-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Boulton Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:32 AM To: mediactrl@ietf.org Subject: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt All, The authors are pleased to announce that the latest version of the MRB document has been submitted - http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt. For details of specific changes take a look at the section 10.1. As you can see, this version has taken large steps forward and now has complete versions of both consumer and publish interfaces. We welcome all feedback and would be grateful for any volunteers that are willing and able to provide expert review. Thanks, Chris & Lorenzo. -- Chris Boulton CTO & Co-founder NS-Technologies <http://www.ns-technologies.com> m: +44.7876.476681 _______________________________________________ MEDIACTRL mailing list MEDIACTRL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl Supplemental Web Site: http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl
- [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt Chris Boulton
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt -… Chris Boulton
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt -… Chris Boulton
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt -… MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt -… MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt -… Chris Boulton
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-02.txt -… Chris Boulton