RE: [Sipping] New Service Examples I-D
"Steve Fisher" <steve_fisher@yahoo.com> Thu, 08 August 2002 13:25 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10762 for <sipping-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:25:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA00887 for sipping-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:26:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00637; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:18:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00607 for <sipping@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:18:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from almso2.proxy.att.com (almso2.att.com [192.128.166.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10627 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:17:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by almso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with ESMTP id g78DILSX004497 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:18:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sfisherlap (<unknown.domain>[135.210.42.106]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20020808131819gw100fmbkce>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:18:19 +0000
From: Steve Fisher <steve_fisher@yahoo.com>
To: 'Adam Roach' <adam@dynamicsoft.com>, "'Avella, Alejandro'" <AAvella@carrieraccess.com>, 'Alan Johnston' <alan.johnston@wcom.com>, sipping@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Sipping] New Service Examples I-D
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 09:18:17 -0400
Message-ID: <000001c23ede$0f600cd0$6a2ad287@sfisherlap>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <9BF66EBF6BEFD942915B4D4D45C051F377A323@DYN-TX-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sipping-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: sipping-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: SIPPING Working Group (applications of SIP) <sipping.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Adam, While I agree with you for the most part, in that SIP clearly is not a stimulus protocol like MGCP and thus relies on the UA to provide much of the functionality, I'm not sure some of these features can be dismissed so easily. Behind your answers there appear to be a couple of assumptions: 1) Each SIP address maps to a single device, and not to a user who may have multiple devices. 2) This device is always on. Consider, for example, Call Return (*69 in the PSTN). While SIP terminals may of course very easily implement a version of this feature by simply keeping a call log and calling back the last INVITE received, consider the following cases: 1) When the last person called, no terminals were registered. 2) When the last person called, a terminal was registered (say, in the home), but not the terminal that the intended recipient is actually using (say, a laptop or mobile phone). In both of these cases there might be value in a network-based Call Return feature that would enable the intended recipient place a return call using any device. On rich clients this could be implemented, for example, using a call log in a web browser, while on dumb terminals this could be implemented by *69. In either case, the recipient can now easily call the last caller back, while if the feature had been implemented only in the terminal, that would not be the case. As another example, consider Facilitated Calling - Redial (*66 in the PSTN). Again, if the user only has one terminal this can easily be implemented by the terminal continually retrying the number. Consider, however, if the caller originally placed the call from one terminal (say, at home), and then left home, a terminal based solution would be of no help. If Redial was implemented in the network, however, and the caller had two terminals registered, then the feature would still have value, since the caller could be connected via this second terminal (say, a mobile phone). Since in my view one of the primary benefits of SIP is its ability to allow addresses to be associated with users, rather than devices, and to allow any number of devices to be dynamically bound to that address, I thought it might be worth pointing out that in some cases this ability limits the value of features implemented solely by the terminal. Steve -----Original Message----- From: sipping-admin@ietf.org [mailto:sipping-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam Roach Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:07 PM To: 'Avella, Alejandro'; 'Alan Johnston'; sipping@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Sipping] New Service Examples I-D Unfortunately, most of the proposed services either don't apply to SIP or don't show up in call flows. > Call Progress Tone - Busy This is a terminal decision. Many phone-shaped terminals may choose to implement this on receipt of a 486 or 603. Many terminals, especially those not shaped like phones, will indicate "Busy" in some other way. > Call Progress Tone - Fast Busy This is a terminal decision. Many phone-shaped terminals may choose to implement this on receipt of an unrecoverable failure response. Many terminals, especially those not shaped like phones, will indicate failure in some other way. > Call Progress Tone -- Offhook Warning This is a terminal decision. Some phone-shaped terminals might choose to play an offhook warning tone, although it is not immediately obvious why. Historically, offhook warning tones have been used because (a) an offhook PSTN phone cannot be made to ring, and (b) offhook phones tie up resources at the CO/EO/RT (as applicable). Neither applies to SIP terminals, so the utility of an offhook warning tone is extremely dubious. Non-phone shaped terminals don't even have a concept of "offhook". All of that notwithstanding, there would be no conceivable callflow associated with this situation. > Play SIT tone This is a terminal decision. Many phone-shaped terminals may choose to implement this on receipt of an unrecoverable failure response. Many terminals, especially those not shaped like phones, will indicate failure in some other way. > Re-route call to announcement server This seems of limited utility. Sending an appropriate SIP error response instead of playing an announcement allows terminals to render error information in a format appropriate for their user. Announcements won't always be applicable. Consider an INVITE meant to establish an instant messaging session -- redirecting such a call to an announcement server would be annoying at best; and, for non-voice clients, it would be a complete failure. > Caller ID - Onhook with Ringing This is a terminal decision. The information to present arrives in SIP headers ("From" if you don't care about validation, and the headers defined by the identity work, if you do). There is no call flow associated with this serivice. > Caller ID - Off hook with Call Waiting This is a terminal decision. The information to present arrives in SIP headers ("From" if you don't care about validation, and the headers defined by the identity work, if you do). There is no call flow associated with this serivice. > Block Caller ID This is a terminal decision. If you don't want the recipient to know who you are, don't tell them. There is no interesting call flow associated with this serivice; 3261 already shows "From" headers containing the word "anonymous". > Message Waiting Lamp (Visual Message Waiting Indication - VMWI) Now, this *is* an interesting service. It is covered in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-mwi-00.txt and doesn't really need reiteration elsewhere. >Feature Invocation or Cancellation > From Onhook - Invocation/Cancellation with Dial-Code Only > From Onhook - Invocation with Dial-Code and Destination Address > From Offhook - Invocation/Cancellation with Flash hook and Dial-Code Only > From Offhook - Invocation with Flash hook, Dial-Code and Destination Address All feature invocation are local implementation decisions made by the terminal. It would be technically possible to design phone-shaped terminals that use 12-button keypads and a hookflash to invoke services; however, as it is rather difficult to imagine a *less* intuitive interface, I doubt any such products will ever be sold. Regardless, there are no callflows associated with such invokation, aside from execution of the services themselves. > Facilitated Calling - Automatic Dialing (local) This is a terminal implementation decision, and will not appear in callflows. > Facilitated Calling - Speed Dial This might be worth discussing; however, its implementation is rather obvious and straighforward, so I don't necessarily support adding it at this time. > Facilitated Calling - Redial This is a terminal implementation decision, and will not appear in callflows. > Facilitated Calling - Call Return This is a terminal implementation decision, and will not appear in callflows. > Facilitated Calling - Hot Line This is a terminal implementation decision, and will not appear in callflows. > Facilitated Calling - Automatic Callback This is covered in section 2.17 > Distinctive ringing This is a terminal implementation decision, and will not appear in callflows. > Multiple DNs on Device This is a matter of registering two AORs with the same contact. This might be worth discussing; however, its implementation is rather obvious and straighforward, so I don't necessarily support adding it at this time. > Intercom Dialing -- Abbreviated Dialing -- 4-digit dialing There is no real concept of abbreviated dialling in SIP; 4 digit dialling is just a normal call. > Coverage and Voice Mail (on busy and no Answer) This is a terminal decision about whether and when to send a 300-class response to a request. The mechanisms to effect it are already covered in sections 2.7 and 2.8. > Simultaneous Ring RFC 3261 covers request forking already. Reiterating it here would serve no purpose. > Call Retrieve (Flash) This is a terminal implementation decision, and will not appear in callflows (except in the form of taking parties on and off hold, covered in sections 2.1 - 2.3). > Disconnect after Hold This is a terminal implementation decision, and will not appear in callflows (except in the form of sending BYE to tear down a call, which is already well documented). > Disconnect after Being Held This is a terminal implementation decision, and will not appear in callflows (except in the form of sending BYE to tear down a call, which is already well documented). > Call Waiting Indication This is a terminal implementation decision, and will not appear in callflows. > Call Waiting - Distinctive Tone(s) This is a terminal implementation decision, and will not appear in callflows. > Call Waiting - Hold and Answer This is a terminal implementation decision, and will not appear in callflows (except in the form of taking parties on and off hold, which is covered in sections 2.1 - 2.3). > Call Waiting - Drop and Answer This is a terminal implementation decision, and will not appear in callflows (except in the form of sending BYE to tear down a call, which is already well documented). > Transfer - Blind This is covered in section 2.4 > Transfer - Consultation Transfer This is covered in section 2.5 > Conference - N-Way - to external bridge This behavior is not yet defined. There is a vigorous ongoing effort to form a unified view of how conferencing works in SIP. Three-way conferencing is described in sections 2.9 and 2.10. >Modem I'm not sure this has been discussed; nor has it (to my knowledge) surfaced as a requirement before. Perhaps you can write up an internet-draft requirements document and socialize the idea. >FAX pass-trough >FAX relay (T.38) Both of these services are described in draft-ietf-sipping-realtimefax-00.txt. They are also shown in draft-ietf-sipping-call-flows, section 3.1.7. /a _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www1.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 _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www1.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
- [Sipping] New Service Examples I-D Alan Johnston
- RE: [Sipping] New Service Examples I-D Avella, Alejandro
- Re: [Sipping] New Service Examples I-D Rohan Mahy
- RE: [Sipping] New Service Examples I-D Adam Roach
- RE: [Sipping] New Service Examples I-D Avella, Alejandro
- RE: [Sipping] New Service Examples I-D Steve Fisher
- RE: [Sipping] New Service Examples I-D Cullen Jennings