RE: [Sip] Comment on willis-sip-answeralert-00
"Zisimopoulos, Haris, VF-Group" <Haris.Zisimopoulos@vodafone.com> Tue, 02 August 2005 14:42 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DzxyH-0006gb-Dj; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:42:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DzxyE-0006ek-Lq for sip@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:42:18 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25012 for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:42:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rat01037.dc-ratingen.de ([195.233.129.142]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DzyUd-00035h-2z for sip@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:15:54 -0400
Received: from heinz.vodafone-is.de (heinz_e0 [195.233.128.26]) by rat01037.dc-ratingen.de (Switch-3.1.4/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j72Eg7tX029926 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 16:42:07 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from gpsmxr04.gps.internal.vodafone.com ([195.232.231.115]) by heinz.vodafone-is.de (Switch-3.1.4/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j72EffDm026656; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 16:42:06 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from gpsmx11.gps.internal.vodafone.com ([145.230.1.15]) by gpsmxr04.gps.internal.vodafone.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 16:41:56 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Sip] Comment on willis-sip-answeralert-00
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:41:57 +0100
Message-ID: <6C742B4BEC7D1D4FB045E74BB625987B021BF72C@gpsmx11.gps.internal.vodafone.com>
Thread-Topic: [Sip] Comment on willis-sip-answeralert-00
Thread-Index: AcWWtaA8ZWA3ZYfeQi++HeWDEaqgiQAloYggAAigjFA=
From: "Zisimopoulos, Haris, VF-Group" <Haris.Zisimopoulos@vodafone.com>
To: Francois Audet <audet@nortel.com>, Kelley Sean-Q12059 <seankelley@motorola.com>, sip@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2005 14:41:56.0275 (UTC) FILETIME=[54AE0830:01C59770]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc:
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
The point is that the description of ManualReq states : "The UAS is also asked NOT to answer automatically, and to reject the request if it is unwilling to answer manually." This is exactly similar to this of AutoReq but when it comes to the description of the procedures of UAS for the AutoReq it is stated that: "The UAS MUST NOT allow "manual" answer of this request, but MAY reject it." But for the ManualReq it is stated: "If the UAS is not capable of answering the request in this "Manual" mode or is unwilling to do so, it SHOULD reject the request with a "403 Forbidden" response..." So the normative behaviour of the UAS when it comes to processing ManualReq and AutoReq is not similar, which from protocol point of view does not make sense given that these header fields convey exactly the same "meaning": If the terminating point cannot answer the request either manually or auto (depending if ManualReq or AutoReq is used) then reject it. AutoReq and ManualReq needs to be mandatory in order to make sense for the UAC to use it for any usage (PoC or not) and be different from Manual and Auto. I cannot understand where it helps if it is wishy-washy. Best regards, Haris ________________________________ From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francois Audet Sent: 02 August 2005 11:27 To: Kelley Sean-Q12059; sip@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Sip] Comment on willis-sip-answeralert-00 I think we have to distinguish what the IETF produces, i.e., a protocol, versus the service requirement from OMA or whoever wants to use that protocol. I think what we need is an explicit indication similar to Required and Supported that gives no ambiguity to the behavior. (I think the current wording with "SHOULD" is too wishy-washy.) Then, OMA can decides that they support one or the other behavior or both for their own application. -----Original Message----- From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kelley Sean-Q12059 Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 09:22 To: sip@ietf.org Subject: [Sip] Comment on willis-sip-answeralert-00 Regarding the UAS procedures for handling the Answer-Mode value of "ManualReq", the draft indicates that the UAS SHOULD answer in manual mode, and the UAS SHOULD reject the request if it is unwilling or incapable of answering in manual mode. However, there is a use case for Push to Talk (as it is being specified in OMA) that might justify changing these SHOULDs to SHALLs (similar to how the UAS procedures for handling AutoReq are currently defined). The requesting user may not want their initial talk burst to be automatically played out from the called UA's speaker phone, due to privacy concerns of the calling user. The common example is a mistress who does not want the call to be auto answered, for fear that the wife is present. Another example is when the requesting user is concerned that he/she might be interupting the called user (i.e. calling user suspects that the called user is having lunch with a customer, or is in a meeting) and therefore wants to "politely" alert the user prior to the initial talk burst being played out, in order to giving the called user an opportunity to reject the call. In each of these cases, the calling user's behavior is based upon a "guarantee" from the PoC service that their initial talk burst will only be played out if the called user manually accepts the call. It also would seem more logical to have the semantics of "ManualReq" be truly "manual mode required", rather than the current "manual mode strongly recommended". _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
- [Sip] Comment on willis-sip-answeralert-00 Kelley Sean-Q12059
- RE: [Sip] Comment on willis-sip-answeralert-00 Francois Audet
- RE: [Sip] Comment on willis-sip-answeralert-00 Zisimopoulos, Haris, VF-Group