Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06

Thank you!
_____________
Roman Shpount

On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 4:32 PM Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Based on Roman’s comments, I have submitted a new version (-08) of 8843bis.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> *From:* mmusic <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Christer Holmberg
> *Sent:* perjantai 3. joulukuuta 2021 11.19
> *To:* Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
> *Cc:* Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>; mmusic-chairs@ietf.org;
> mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations)
> in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06
>
>
>
> Hi Roman,
>
>
>
> Regarding the nits in 7.4.1 and the missing comma in 7.6, I will fix as
> suggested.
>
>
>
> Regarding the “rewriting” wording, I think it should be either “e.g., by
> rewriting” or “and e.g., rewrite”. Simply “e.g., rewrite” does not sound
> right to me.
>
>
>
> But, someone who is more fluent in English than I am can of course correct
> me :)
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> *From:* Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
> *Sent:* perjantai 3. joulukuuta 2021 1.21
> *To:* Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
> *Cc:* Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>; mmusic-chairs@ietf.org;
> mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations)
> in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06
>
>
>
> Hi Christer,
>
>
>
> I have reviewed the changes and there are a couple of nits:
>
>
>
> In 7.4.1:
>
> "answeris" should be  "answer is"
>
>
>
> In 7.6
>
> "In this situation the endpoint" should be "In this situation, the
> endpoint" (missing comma).
>
>
>
> "Therefore, the 3PCC controller SHOULD take actions to mitigate this
> problem, e.g., by rewriting the subsequent BUNDLE offer into a valid
> initial BUNDLE offer (Section 7.2), before it forwards the BUNDLE offer to
> a UA."
>
>
>
> should be
>
>
>
> "Therefore, the 3PCC controller SHOULD take actions to mitigate this
> problem, e.g., rewrite the subsequent BUNDLE offer into a valid initial
> BUNDLE offer (Section 7.2), before it forwards the BUNDLE offer to a UA."
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 3:54 AM Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=
> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I just submitted a new version (-07), which implements the changes based
> on Paul’s comments.
>
>
>
> Thank You to everyone who provided comments and input! :)
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> *From:* Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
> *Sent:* maanantai 29. marraskuuta 2021 20.13
> *To:* Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>;
> mmusic-chairs@ietf.org
> *Cc:* mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations)
> in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/29/21 11:58, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> Chairs,
>
>
>
> Can I submit a new version of the document, with the changes suggested
> below?
>
>
> Please do. Also, did Paul Kyzivat's comments get resolved / updated ?
>
> Thanks
>
> -- Flemming
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Justin Uberti <juberti@alphaexplorationco.com>
> <juberti@alphaexplorationco.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 29, 2021 1:46 AM
> *To:* Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> <roman@telurix.com>
> *Cc:* Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
> <fandreas@cisco.com>; mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org> <mmusic@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations)
> in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06
>
>
>
> Looks good to me too.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 2:13 AM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>
> This still works for me.
>
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 4:33 PM Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=
> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Is everyone else ok with the changes?
>
>
>
> Change #1:
>
>
>
> Change ‘Offer’ and ‘Answer’ to ‘offer’ and ‘answer’ throughout the
> document.
>
>
>
>
>
> Change #2:
>
>
>
> OLD:
>
>
>
>    In some 3rd Party Call Control (3PCC) scenarios a new session will be
>
>    established between an endpoint that is currently part of an ongoing
>
>    session and an endpoint that is currently not part of an ongoing
>
>    session.  The endpoint that is part of a session will generate a
>
>    subsequent SDP Offer that will be forwarded to the other endpoint by
>
>    a 3PCC controller.  The endpoint that is not part of a session will
>
>    process the Offer as an initial SDP Offer.
>
>
>
>    The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261>] allows a User Agent
>
>    Client (UAC) to send a re-INVITE request without an SDP body
>
>    (sometimes referred to as an empty re-INVITE).  In such cases, the
>
>    User Agent Server (UAS) will include an SDP Offer in the associated
>
>    200 (OK) response.  If the UAS is a part of an ongoing SIP session,
>
>    it will include a subsequent offer in the 200 (OK) response.  The
>
>    offer will be received by a 3PCC controller (UAC) and then forwarded
>
>    to another User Agent (UA).  If the UA is not part of an ongoing SIP
>
>    session, it will process the offer as an initial SDP Offer.
>
>
>
> NEW:
>
>
>
>    In some 3rd Party Call Control (3PCC) scenarios a new session will be
>
>    established between an endpoint that is currently part of an ongoing
>
>    session and an endpoint that is not currently part of an ongoing
>
>    session. In this situation the endpoint that is not part of a session,
>
>    while expecting an initial offer, can receive an SDP offer created as
>
>    a subsequent offer. The text below describes how this can occur with
>
>    the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)[RFC3261 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261>].
>
>
>
>    SIP allows a User Agent Client (UAC) to send a re-INVITE request without
>
>    an SDP body (sometimes referred to as an empty re-INVITE). In such cases,
>
>    the User Agent Server (UAS) will include an SDP offer in the associated
>
>    200 (OK) response, and when the UAS is a part of an ongoing SIP session,
>
>    this offer will be a subsequent offer. This offer will be received
>
>    by the 3PCC controller (UAC) and then forwarded to another User Agent (UA).
>
>    When that UA is not part of an ongoing SIP session, as noted above,
>
>    it will process the offer as an initial SDP Offer.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* mmusic <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Justin Uberti
> *Sent:* torstai 25. marraskuuta 2021 1.16
> *To:* Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
> *Cc:* Flemming Andreasen <fandreas=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; mmusic <
> mmusic@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations)
> in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06
>
>
>
> Good suggestion, that works for me.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 3:17 AM Christer Holmberg <
> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Maybe we instead of saying “as described below” could say ”The text below
> describes how this can occur with SIP”.
>
>
>
> That way the 1st paragraph remains independent from SIP.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> *From:* Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
> *Sent:* tiistai 23. marraskuuta 2021 20.54
> *To:* Justin Uberti <juberti@alphaexplorationco.com>
> *Cc:* Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; Flemming
> Andreasen <fandreas=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations)
> in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06
>
>
>
> Justin,
>
>
>
> Part of the reason for the non-SIP language and renaming the section was
> to make it clearer that it can apply to WebRTC, not just SIP. I think the
> goal here is to come up with the language that can be referenced from the
> JSEP draft, which should reduce your work.
>
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 1:29 PM Justin Uberti <
> juberti@alphaexplorationco.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 2:00 AM Christer Holmberg <
> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> >>>1) for some reason, "offer" has been replaced with "Offer" throughout
> the document. This is a minor nit, but seems incorrect to me.
> >>
> >> I did that, because in the previous version we already used "BUNDLE
> Offer", so I thought I'd do it to be consistent.
> >
> > The problem though is that "answer" still is in lowercase so that
> introduces its own inconsistency.
>
> Good catch. I was actually going to change that too, but now realized I
> forgot to.
>
> I have no strong opinion regarding whether we use upper- or lowercase, as
> long as we are consistent.
>
> > Generally I think we should avoid capitalization of common words to
> avoid confusion.
>
> I can change everything to lowercase.
>
>
>
> Sounds good.
>
>
> ---
>
> >>>2) The first two paragraphs of 7.6 say similar things and it's not
> clear to me why they both exist. Here is my suggested revision:
> >>
> >> The first paragraph is more general, while the second paragraph
> describes how it is realized in SIP.
> >
> > Understood, but I feel like that intent was not totally clear in the
> current text.
>
> I am mostly fine with your suggested modification.
>
> However, as we don't really talk about "offer semantics" elsewhere in the
> document, perhaps:
>
> "In this situation the endpoint that is not part of a session can receive
> an SDP offer, created as a
> subsequent offer, while expecting an initial offer, as described below."
>
>
>
> That works. It might be easier to understand with the "while expecting an
> initial offer" clause first:
>
>
>
> "In this situation the endpoint that is not part of a session, while
> expecting an initial offer, can receive an SDP offer created as a
>
> subsequent offer, as described below."
>
>
>
> But I am fine either way.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
>
> OLD:
>
>    In some 3rd Party Call Control (3PCC) scenarios a new session will be
>    established between an endpoint that is currently part of an ongoing
>    session and an endpoint that is currently not part of an ongoing
>    session.  The endpoint that is part of a session will generate a
>    subsequent SDP Offer that will be forwarded to the other endpoint by
>    a 3PCC controller.  The endpoint that is not part of a session will
>    process the Offer as an initial SDP Offer.
>
>    The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261] allows a User Agent
>    Client (UAC) to send a re-INVITE request without an SDP body
>    (sometimes referred to as an empty re-INVITE).  In such cases, the
>    User Agent Server (UAS) will include an SDP Offer in the associated
>    200 (OK) response.  If the UAS is a part of an ongoing SIP session,
>    it will include a subsequent offer in the 200 (OK) response.  The
>    offer will be received by a 3PCC controller (UAC) and then forwarded
>    to another User Agent (UA).  If the UA is not part of an ongoing SIP
>    session, it will process the offer as an initial SDP Offer.
>
> NEW:
>
>    In some 3rd Party Call Control (3PCC) scenarios a new session will be
>    established between an endpoint that is currently part of an ongoing
>    session and an endpoint that is not currently part of an ongoing
>    session.  In this situation the endpoint that is not part of a session
>    can receive SDP with subsequent offer semantics in an initial
>    SDP Offer, as described below.
>
>    The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261] allows a User Agent
>    Client (UAC) to send a re-INVITE request without an SDP body
>    (sometimes referred to as an empty re-INVITE).  In such cases, the
>    User Agent Server (UAS) will include an SDP offer in the associated
>    200 (OK) response, and when the UAS is a part of an ongoing SIP session,
>    this offer will be a subsequent offer. This offer will be received
>    by the 3PCC controller (UAC) and then forwarded to another User Agent
> (UA).
>    When that UA is not part of an ongoing SIP session, as noted above,
>    it will process the offer as an initial SDP Offer.
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:16 PM Flemming Andreasen <fandreas=mailto:
> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Greetings MMUSIC
>
> We previously submitted draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis for publication,
> however subsequently, the issue of 3rd Party Call Control came up and as a
> result of that, Section 7.6 has been updated accordingly.
>
> We are hereby starting a 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 only in
> draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06.
>
> If you have any comments on Section 7.6, please send those to the document
> authors and the MMUSIC mailing list by Wednesday November 24, 2021. If you
> review it but do not have any comments, please send a note to that effect
> as well.
>
> Thanks
>
> -- Flemming (MMUSIC co-chair)
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mailto:mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>