Re: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs in a CSG?

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

There are many ways to skin the unique id cat, depending on what 
problems we most want to optimize:

- the uuid urn we are currently specifying.
   it takes 45 bytes on the wire, but only 16 bytes to store in binary.
   New values can be computed with the cost of an SHA-1 computation
   over something locally unique that need not be large.

- we could invent a way to encode the same kinds of values more
   compactly if on-the-wire size is the concern. For instance,
   with radix 64 the same value could be represented in 22 bytes
   rather than 45.

- if cost of computation is an issue, we could use two-part uuids,
   where one part is as above, and the other part is a simple integer.
   This would take more bytes to transmit and store, but (arguably)
   less computation to generate.

- we could use two-part ids as above, but where one part is
   optional to supply, defaulting to a per-RS value. Normally you
   would only supply one part, but could supply both parts if you
   want to reference an id that doesn't include the RS-default.
   Two-part ids would be large, while one-part ones could be small.
   The overall average would depend on locality - if most ids are
   per-RS then the average would be small. The SRS would still
   have to store both parts, but it could also use optimization
   tricks if it wishes.

IMO the simplest thing is just to go with uuid urns. But the last option 
above would also work for me if people feel the added complexity is 
justified.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 6/15/2011 11:53 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
> OK, I understand. So I will go along with the majority. Any other opinions whether we need global ID or local ID for MS?
>
> John
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 15 June 2011 15:43
>> To: Elwell, John
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs in a CSG?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/15/2011 9:55 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> But if the two SRCs are somehow cooperating to the extent
>> that they can share the same global ID for the CS, could they
>> not also share the same local ID for the MS? Why does it need
>> to be a global ID?
>>
>> They could *know* each other's local id for the MS.
>> They might even agree to use the *same* value for the local id.
>>
>> E.g. we have SRC#1 and SRC#2, each using 123 as the local id for the
>> "same" stream.
>>
>> But to the SRS, there is one MS with id SRC#1:123, and
>> another MS with
>> SRC#2:123. It does not know they are the same. (That is the point of
>> local scoping.)
>>
>> So even though the two SRCs know they are talking about the
>> same MS they
>> have no way to tell that to the SRS.
>>
>>        Thanks,
>>        Paul
>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail]
>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
>>>> Sent: 14 June 2011 16:31
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs in a CSG?
>>>>
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> Consider another case: two SRCs in the same CS (perhaps one at each
>>>> "end".) They are both sending metadata about the same CS and MSs.
>>>>
>>>> Suppose they want to cooperate with each other. They have the
>>>> potential
>>>> to use the same ID to reference the CS, so that the SRS will
>>>> know they
>>>> are talking about the same one. But with RS-specific MS ids
>>>> there is no
>>>> way for them to indicate that they are talking about the same
>>>> MSs. With
>>>> global MS ids, they could accomplish this.
>>>>
>>>>         Thanks,
>>>>         Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 6/14/2011 11:03 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
>>>>> Partha,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the examples. The character count for the delta
>>>> is about 2500 when a new MS is created compared to about 2100
>>>> when the MS is retained. This seems to be in line with my
>>>> previous gut feeling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Concerning the need for "SRS implementers to guess how old
>>>> MS and new MS are related", I don't think they are related,
>>>> except by having other things in common like a common
>>>> participant or a common CSG.
>>>>>
>>>>> John (as individual)
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Parthasarathi R (partr) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2011 13:15
>>>>>> To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu); Leon Portman; Elwell, John; Ram
>>>>>> Mohan R (rmohanr); [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs in a CSG?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for the delay. Just to double confirm everybody
>>>>>> understanding with
>>>>>> SIP message example, I added the example with creating new MS and
>>>>>> reusing the same MS as an attachment with this mail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please note that creating new MS is putting SRS
>>>> implementers to guess
>>>>>> how old MS and new MS are related. Also, few scenario like
>>>>    Even after
>>>>>> looking into the example, the intention is to use local
>>>> variable, I'm
>>>>>> ok.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Partha
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:57 PM
>>>>>> To: Leon Portman; Elwell, John; Parthasarathi R (partr);
>>>> Ram Mohan R
>>>>>> (rmohanr); [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs in a CSG?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please excuse the delay. I am catching up after having
>> been away on
>>>>>> vacation.
>>>>>> In light of this better understanding of the use case, I also
>>>>>> prefer the
>>>>>> option favored by John and Leon to model as a separate
>> MS. In this
>>>>>> specific case, I would expect the properties of the MS to
>>>>>> change when A
>>>>>> is transferred to C, so I expect the overhead in creating
>>>> a new MS vs.
>>>>>> reusing the same MS to be minimal and not worth the added
>>>>>> complexity to
>>>>>> the model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Leon Portman [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 6:19 AM
>>>>>>> To: Elwell, John; Parthasarathi R (partr); Charles Eckel
>>>> (eckelcu);
>>>>>>> Ram Mohan R (rmohanr); [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs
>> in a CSG?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also having a problem even without a quantification
>> of number of
>>>>>>> update messages that CS MS is remains same between
>>>>>> different CS.  So I
>>>>>> do prefer to keep it simple and keep it per CS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: [e-mail]
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Elwell, John
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 12:26 PM
>>>>>>> To: Parthasarathi R (partr); Charles Eckel (eckelcu);
>> Ram Mohan R
>>>>>>> (rmohanr); [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs
>> in a CSG?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Parthasarathi R (partr) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>> Sent: 26 May 2011 15:55
>>>>>>>> To: Elwell, John; Charles Eckel (eckelcu); Ram Mohan R
>> (rmohanr);
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [siprec] Can an MS object span several
>> CSs in a CSG?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The callflow mentioned by me is the basic primitive in the call
>>>>>>>> center scenario wherein customer (participant) is same
>> throughout
>>>>>>>> the session and agents are changed using transfer service
>>>>>> and B2BUA
>>>>>> acts as SRC.
>>>>>>>> IMO, it is one of key requirement to be considered in case we
>>>>>>>> support for partial-update.
>>>>>>> [JRE] Agreed the Participant remains the same, but we are
>>>> discussing
>>>>>> MS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This may not be the only callflow where MS partial-update is
>>>>>>>> required in this fashion. During -00 format draft, I
>> thought that
>>>>>>>> the partial-update is not required but lot of folks raised the
>>>>>>>> concern that partial update is important. Current, -01
>>>>>> format draft
>>>>>>>> is designed to support partial-update. Now, You propose
>>>>>> to restrict
>>>>>>>> MS partial-update across CS. IMO, it is a not good idea
>>>>>> to restrict
>>>>>>>> in the protocol level. Anyway, I think that we need
>>>>>> others opinion
>>>>>>>> before conclude here.
>>>>>>> [JRE] I am not opposed to partial update, but I would
>>>> like to avoid
>>>>>>> distorting the model just to gain some efficiency
>> improvements in
>>>>>>> certain cases. To me it is not intuitive that a MS on one
>>>>>> CS and an MS
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on another CS are the same object, just because one of the
>>>>>>> Participants is common to both CSs. In the
>> transfer-between-agents
>>>>>> example, although one of the Participants is common to the
>>>>>> two CSs, this
>>>>>> is not true for the other Participants.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's try to quantify the efficiency improvement. In the blind
>>>>>>> transfer case, the partial updates would at least have
>> to include:
>>>>>>> - the removal of P1 from CS1 (where P1 is the first agent
>>>>>> and CS1 is
>>>>>>> the first CS);
>>>>>>> - the removal of P2 from CS1 (where P2 is the transferred
>>>>>>> participant);
>>>>>>> - the termination of CS1;
>>>>>>> - the removal of CS1 from CSG1;
>>>>>>> - the creation of CS2 (the CS that results from transfer);
>>>>>>> - the addition to of CS2 to CSG1;
>>>>>>> - the addition of P2 to CSG1;
>>>>>>> - the addition of P3 to CS2 (where P3 is the second agent);
>>>>>>> - the removal of P1 as a sender of MS1 (MS1 is from P1 to P2);
>>>>>>> - the removal of P2 as a recipient of MS1;
>>>>>>> - the termination of MS1;
>>>>>>> - the creation of MS3;
>>>>>>> - the addition of P3 as a sender of MS3;
>>>>>>> - the addition of P2 as a recipient of MS3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So all we are arguing about is whether we also include in
>>>>>> the partial
>>>>>>> updates EITHER (this I think is your proposal):
>>>>>>> - the removal of P1 as a recipient of MS2;
>>>>>>> - the addition of P3 as a recipient of MS2;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OR
>>>>>>> - the removal of P1 as recipient of MS2;
>>>>>>> - the removal of P2 as a sender of MS2;
>>>>>>> - the termination MS2;
>>>>>>> - the creation of MS4;
>>>>>>> - the addition of P3 as a recipient of MS4;
>>>>>>> - the addition of P2 as a sender of MS4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So with the first option the total number of deltas is 14+2=16.
>>>>>>> For the second option the total number of deltas is 14+6=20.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of the details might be wrong, but I hope you can see
>>>>>> the point I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> am getting at. Looked at this way, the efficiency saving by
>>>>>> recycling
>>>>>>> MS2 for use in consecutive CSs is relatively small. Or
>>>> perhaps your
>>>>>>> intention is also to recycle MS1 (this time, the recipient
>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>>> the same but the sender changing). That would reduce
>> the number of
>>>>>>> deltas slightly further. The impact on XML size might not
>>>>>> be quite in
>>>>>>> proportion to the reduction in the number of deltas, since by
>>>>>> recycling MS2 it has to have a global identifier, not an
>> identifier
>>>>>> local to a CS. Or perhaps it could have an identifier
>>>> local to a CSG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also see that with your proposal it doesn't force the MS to be
>>>>>>> recycled - an SRC could still choose to model it as
>> separate MSs.
>>>>>>> However, in that case it would still need to use global
>>>> identifiers
>>>>>> for MSs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not necessarily opposed to your proposal for recycling
>>>>>> MS objects
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> outside the context of a single CS - I can see advantages and
>>>>>>> disadvantages. I just want to make sure the group makes
>>>> an informed
>>>>>> decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John (as individual)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Enhancing label attribute across the multiple SIP
>> message to tie
>>>>>>>> between Metadata XML and RS SDP m-line is possible. SRC has to
>>>>>>>> ensure that label for the given RS SDP m-line should have
>>>>>> same label
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> throughout single CSG even though it span across
>> multiple CS and
>>>>>>>> multiple RS. Even then, it will not meet partial-update
>>>>>> requirement
>>>>>>>> as mentioned below in this mail thread. At this moment,
>>>>>> I'm favoring
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> URN UUID and not label attribute enhancement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please read inline
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Partha
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Elwell, John [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 7:17 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Parthasarathi R (partr); Charles Eckel (eckelcu);
>> Ram Mohan R
>>>>>>>> (rmohanr); [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [siprec] Can an MS object span several
>> CSs in a CSG?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Parthasarathi R (partr) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: 25 May 2011 08:48
>>>>>>>>> To: Elwell, John; Charles Eckel (eckelcu); Ram Mohan R
>>>>>> (rmohanr);
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs
>>>>>> in a CSG?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> ==================================================================
>>>>>>>>> =
>>>>>>>>>> 3) B transfer the call of A&    B to C using REFER, B2BUA
>>>>>>>>> converts REFER
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to RE-INVITE towards A&    C and A&    C are connected. B2BUA
>>>>>>>>> updates RS
>>>>>>>>>> with CS2, Participant1 as A&    participant2 as C,
>>>>>> MS1(A's media
>>>>>>>>>> stream), MS2(C's media stream). There is no update on RS1,
>>>>>>>>> CSG1, MS1,
>>>>>>>>>> MS2. MS2 will become MS2 with the new association and
>>>>>> in terms
>>>>>>>>>> of format, it will associate with<send>    tag
>>>>>>>>> [JRE] What harm is done (what do we lose) if, following
>>>>>>>> transfer, A's
>>>>>>>>> media stream is called MS3 and C's media stream is called MS4?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> ====================================================================
>>>>>>>> =
>>>>>>>>> <Partha>    To indicate MS1 as MS3, MS1 media block has to be
>>>>>>>> stopped in
>>>>>>>>> the partial-update and start MS3 separate which is not
>>>>>> required in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> case there is a means to have common MS1.</Partha>
>>>>>>>> [JRE] It seems this distorts the model in order to give
>>>>>> some minor
>>>>>>>> efficiency improvement during metadata updates. I
>> doubt that this
>>>>>>>> alone is sufficient justification for having the MS
>>>>>> persist from one
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CS to another CS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ==============================================================
>>>>>>>>> ==========
>>>>>>>>> =======================
>>>>>>>>> MS3 can reference the same SDP m-line (through
>> a=label) as MS1,
>>>>>>>>> and likewise MS4 could reference the same SDP m-line as
>>>>>> MS2, if we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are concerned about recycling media descriptions in RS SDP.
>>>>>>>>> ==============================================================
>>>>>>>>> ==========
>>>>>>>>> ==================
>>>>>>>>> <Partha>    As you mentioned, we will lose recycling of media
>>>>>>>> description
>>>>>>>>> in RS SDP without common value in media stream object for this
>>>>>>>>> scenario.
>>>>>>>> [JRE] I don't understand your point. With my proposal we
>>>>>> can still
>>>>>>>> recycle RS SDP m-lines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <Partha>    Agreed that Recycle is possible with your proposal.
>>>>>>>> I indicated
>>>>>>>> the need for unique-id in this  requirement</Partha>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, Your proposal needs enhancement in RFC 4574 as label
>>>>>>>> attribute
>>>>>>>>> scope is within single SIP message and not required to
>>>>>> be unique
>>>>>>>>> in all SIP messages of a given dialog.</Partha>
>>>>>>>> [JRE] But I think we could nail that down as a
>> requirement of the
>>>>>>>> SIPREC protocol.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John (as individual)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>> Partha
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John (as individual)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> Partha
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:39 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: Ram Mohan R (rmohanr); Parthasarathi R (partr);
>>>>>>>> 'Elwell, John';
>>>>>>>>>> '[e-mail]'
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs in a
>>>>>> CSG?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ram,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that is many cases, they will be treated as
>>>>>> separate MSs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> due to the complexities you mention. However, I am trying to
>>>>>>>> understand if
>>>>>>>>>> Partha feels allowing an SRC to treat them as a single MS is
>>>>>>>>>> still required. If not, then what is a use case? A concrete
>>>>>>>>>> example would help me, and potentially others, to better
>>>>>>>>>> understand the
>>>>>>>>> motivation behind
>>>>>>>>>> Partha's requirement for modeling media from multiple CSs
>>>>>>>>> as a single
>>>>>>>>>> MS.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:36 AM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu); Parthasarathi R (partr);
>>>>>>>>> Elwell, John;
>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs
>>>>>>>> in a CSG?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Charles,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I did bring about this specific usecase of MMOH/MOH
>>>>>>>> stream being
>>>>>>>>>>> played to different participants earlier and suggested that
>>>>>>>>>> they have
>>>>>>>>>>> to treated as a same MS across multiple CSs
>>>>>>>> (potentially recorded
>>>>>>>>>> using multiple RSs).
>>>>>>>>>>> Refer
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/siprec/current/msg01886.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We had several discussions on it and it and several
>>>>>>>> folks were in
>>>>>>>>>>> favor of treating it as separate MS as there would be
>>>>>>>>>> complexity in DB
>>>>>>>>>> design.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Ram
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:11 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Parthasarathi R (partr); Elwell, John; [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs
>>>>>>>>> in a CSG?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Partha,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is an example of this the same music on hold audio stream
>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>> as the same MS within multiple CSs? If so, then I
>>>>>>>>> understand your
>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement to be that the SRC be able to
>>>>>> indicate multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>> instances of this audio stream within several CSs as
>>>>>>>>>> being the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> MS. Is that correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Parthasarathi R (partr)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:26 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Elwell, John; [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs
>>>>>>>>>> in a CSG?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that it is not mandatory to consider recorded
>>>>>>>>>> stream of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific participant in several CS within the same
>>>>>>>> CSG as one
>>>>>>>>>>>> recorded
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stream but SIPREC protocol design MUST NOT restrict a
>>>>>>>>>> SRC in case
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it wishes to design in such a way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Partha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of Elwell, John
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:06 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs
>>>>>>>> in a CSG?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We seem to have consensus that a Media Stream object
>>>>>>>>>> represents a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recorded media stream, contributed to by one,
>>>>>>>> several or all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Participants. However, Partha also wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "2) Each MS lifetime related to CSG because participant
>>>>>>>>>> may move
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from one CS to another CS within single CSG and also
>>>>>>>>>> CSG will span
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> across multiple RS."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure we had resolved this during earlier
>>>>>>>>>> discussions on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope of an MS object. Although the same
>>>>>>>> Participant can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> participate
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> several CSs within the same CSG, I don't think the
>>>>>>>>>> recorded media
>>>>>>>>>>>>> streams need to be considered the same. Any other views?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John (as individual)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> siprec mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> siprec mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> siprec mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> siprec mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> siprec mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> siprec mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>>>>
>>>
>>
>