Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06
Justin Uberti <juberti@alphaexplorationco.com> Wed, 24 November 2021 23:16 UTC
Return-Path: <juberti@alphaexplorationco.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A293A0CCF for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:16:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=alphaexplorationco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QmJ0gRDjM8xs for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:16:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x231.google.com (mail-oi1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C428D3A0CD2 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:16:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x231.google.com with SMTP id q25so8628435oiw.0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:16:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alphaexplorationco.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ahv48lr75VLBDykyLwZVUI44XktNmYR9802u9waOmO0=; b=cMsxl80f0Gv9towJVZEypoPOjWI7U4UUPF7nq4ALlpESkdwNQGFX3M4y191HvrMCKy ZIKKO5ZBmk4BAOl2n/y5oZabBj8lwKerwE/PAKXmtJNa5prDX/5g94BBvgoZMh9cHo/X VS+aus8xh1SUOL8njdYj6wIzRwj4JEntfSBif5i16lPtla2C3ZjTr49Y39X+C3/MZjal IMOOqMgc8squjk0lIGBtubbaH3+r+lLTZvhwDwMp/z9x5vyJyQEhDwDpiR/loQiyund2 2yImHkiwckbQVQhxeDMbyvKQahHM9HJ5Mcba49VM6ZY0j4wFe2fdnihLq9ZpBSuGIyV8 bZJw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ahv48lr75VLBDykyLwZVUI44XktNmYR9802u9waOmO0=; b=74otTKezrWAaUmsiiANpDuMq5/CvnksR7ZCQzjI88VPp6rxIf6fUctAbad7gR2rOqR Rbw/AwZJlzYrLbrxWTuSkpRlJx57f5S+r9TbwNlMd9RXeRtcbiiWOW0gYuJMgQktl+O8 IqNAuPxM+B1d7yRyYvC2YfjsC4SS4hPmq8hVD5yL2KWW5GYEopBGm6+E8E8Q2tn4aiw9 X5FbaSSCCz7r6vzbNyYvVmRoSGUHsICRWovNrqj/U1Pv2b+yZrXAKT8dzu1t0RUliJq3 RiahF+fXc1FfZkgPcsQzaYgmSMoVahstoDgO05X+UqPZAqWhu8DlsrfmM20LLcF1MYrm FWyg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ciVYFfVWiswXSiQqu0e34AeEI099G25OqpZ+qjwyVB1+LDjQH kZR9YVZKApHC6GZyWfA4DCdqr4refNYODlxK9kj+8KywS+k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyDZp3xokf/BxiD66m5tlsJ1X5G4L18vr5ol6s7BOP0kcEGPJu1DK6nZx2vjaMpEidK10stYarGaB3Jj3/OoLE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:2cc:: with SMTP id a12mr10574871oid.126.1637795768844; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:16:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <443b55f8-9d42-6728-de87-36a8392aaa10@cisco.com> <CAOLzse3aNuKCp9jSXyzAdLjpaCZUzL4K071k3zLTWoE3Fry-BA@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB4441163C03DA3FA9A88B0114939F9@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOLzse1JMd=re=96OQR1qD6wj_SJnwRdUGAzU69k4v=gr4LcvQ@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB44419673CDC9E5C1CD76F04593609@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOLzse3e0bmNwkz_2T6QvpQYs5Q3dqB8YnEoVQp=YRPhGP+6Vw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxs25qiRvvFZDzda2CWun3MAwZxz8WrGYJdDHEgdB1d0ng@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB44415ADB77F0EA6B8732DB2393619@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB44415ADB77F0EA6B8732DB2393619@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@alphaexplorationco.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:15:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOLzse3yFO+iAWEeqrv_WZTZZi0xO3C3pGL+G13-59N4+kgj-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000004572605d1910b4b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/xjNwm6_5III4zkXj19Tls_-uWQw>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 23:16:16 -0000
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] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Conside… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Justin Uberti
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Justin Uberti
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Keith Drage
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Justin Uberti
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Justin Uberti
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Justin Uberti
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Justin Uberti
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Con… Christer Holmberg