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

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

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 <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 2:00 AM Christer Holmberg <
> [e-mail]> 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:
>> [e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>