Re: [Sipping] Request for Open discussion about SIP mobility

Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> Fri, 09 May 2008 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <sipping-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sipping-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sipping-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C033A697A; Fri, 9 May 2008 05:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561D73A683E for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2008 02:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HObcvbyKZBrb for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2008 02:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (mailgw3.ericsson.se [193.180.251.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9426E3A6818 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 May 2008 02:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id F020620AE7; Fri, 9 May 2008 11:16:56 +0200 (CEST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-ae89cbb00000193b-18-48241688732d
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id C867520465; Fri, 9 May 2008 11:16:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 9 May 2008 11:16:56 +0200
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 9 May 2008 11:16:56 +0200
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4029A245D; Fri, 9 May 2008 12:16:56 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9AB04DBA1; Fri, 9 May 2008 12:16:55 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from cs78160077.pp.htv.fi (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AA4E4DB83; Fri, 9 May 2008 12:16:55 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <48241687.7010607@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 12:16:55 +0300
From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
References: <4819667D.9060600@kddilabs.jp> <481F0E2C.30805@cisco.com> <481F3C75.4030307@kddilabs.jp> <481F9D3F.7090005@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <481F9D3F.7090005@cisco.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 May 2008 09:16:56.0418 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D7D3C20:01C8B1B5]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: sipping@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Request for Open discussion about SIP mobility
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0941056968=="
Sender: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org

Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> Haruki Izumikawa wrote:
>   
>>  > And related to that - what about non-RTP media?
>>  > This same scenario is applicable to less conventional
>>  > media, such as IM. While technically it is possible
>>  > to follow the pattern you have outlined to establish
>>  > bicast MSRP, the identification of duplicate messages
>>  > will require a different solution.
>>
>> [HI] I think the bicasting solution is needed for realtime multimedia 
>> streams in which re-transmission cannot be acceptable. Therefore, I 
>> don't know some services such as IM or file transfer using MSRP need 
>> bicasting support. In fact, I haven't considered the concern you pointed 
>> out. I'm going to have to weigh this concern more carefully. Thank you 
>> for bringing this matter up.
>>     
>
> I guess it depends on what you mean by "acceptable".
> If you move from wifi to cellular access while IMing, I will not be 
> happy if some IMs from you are dropped or duplicated.
>
> In fact, I think this is more noticable for IM than for voice. With 
> voice a few dropped packets may cause a "glitch" but probably will not 
> create a significant loss of information. But a single dropped IM can be 
> a large loss of information.
>
> And now people are talking about using MSRP for real time text as well.
>
> So while it is perhaps of lower priority and interest, I think media 
> such as MSRP are worthy of some consideration.
>   
I completely agree with Paul, a SIP mobility solution should consider 
also the MSRP and
in general TCP scenario.
In the voice or video scenario (using rtp) a few dropped packets could 
be acceptable even
not noticed at all.
However using MSRP or in general TCP the scenario several issue should 
be considered,
for example:
- the time to setup a new TCP connection (this especially in the 
cellular world takes time several seconds)
- which messages or packets retransmit
- how avoid duplications or even retransmission of the same data

regards
Sal
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP