Re: [sipcore] draft-lavers-sipcore-immersive-capability-00.txt

Dean,

I agree. My original understanding was that caller preferences was for this sort of thing, not for merely mapping based in concrete things like video, but the more subjective things like immersive.

Anyway, you appreciate the problem, but I don't have the perfect solution. I suspect there is no perfect solution.

Paul

_____________________________________________
From: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
Sent: Tue May 08 19:43:05 CEST 2012
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Cc: glavers@cisco.com, sipcore@ietf.org, dave Cruse <davecruse1@hotmail.com>, gsalguei@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [sipcore] draft-lavers-sipcore-immersive-capability-00.txt

On May 1, 2012, at 6:26 AM, Paul E. Jones wrote:

> 
> Unfortunately, the IETF did not like it, citing that "immersive" is not well-defined and also admitting that the whole "caller preferences" work is not specified very well. As we understood the intent of caller preferences, we believed that "immersive" would be a valuable addition, for example, to allow me to make a call to you and indicate that I want an "immersive" device. What "immersive" might mean to me and you might be different, but the thinking was that if you have a desk phone and an HD video terminal, then you would mark the HD video terminal as "immersive". This would allow me to call you from my HD video terminal to your. Without this addition to SIP, then if I call you, both your desk phone and HD video terminal might ring. You might answer my HD video call on your phone. That's a bit of a waste, right? So, SIP will remain "dumb" in this regard, I guess.
> 

This sounds more like a combination of a Q-value-like weighting for the "media richness" of a contact, and a caller preferences modifier that would shift the request to the media-richest contact.

And yeah, media richness is a sloppy term too.

But without hard transition points or multiple axes in ratings, how does the called party know whether the "hologram screen with no sound" or the "planet rumbling sound system with no screen" is the better choice for a given call? That's why I think we're talking about a general preference for the proxy to engage in priority-weighting the contacts based on their ability to service the preferred offer and then sequential-fork across those contacts in priority order, rather than just parallel-forking all to all the contacts and letting the first contact to respond get the call.

I can see this being useful. The other day I had something like 16 SIP devices in my house registered to my AOR, and it was pretty deafening every time a call came in. If the "video" calls could have been routed to my PC, that would have been nice. But it wouldn't always work, because I might have stepped out into the back yard with only an audio device in-hand, and the proxy would not have known it.

Maybe something that would be presented to me at ring time saying "The caller is offering video, think it is important, but can go without it" so I'd know to answer on the PC if I could?

I think there's a real use case hiding in the "immersive" idea, but we haven't really teased it out yet.

--
dean

_____________________________________________

sipcore mailing list
sipcore@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore