[siprec] Two questions on draft-ietf-siprec-metadata
"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Thu, 18 October 2012 08:28 UTC
Return-Path: <rmohanr@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 934B721F848B for <siprec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hnubWJc7E3BF for <siprec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6505B21F8467 for <siprec@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=797; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1350548922; x=1351758522; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=R5tXWEvMhr58jKhjBW3TIwBdLX7UdMf3MysyZqoWRaU=; b=UUybfvHE9Inn9OG5U4esfxD0CX4IK3xnh0B0WUQr1WUsdZGw7J/B4kuR lj3rrTwt4ub+cDc+FU9Tst/y67CmVN6aMCxuqshQYSr7Rd9JsicM6CoLM jH20UxYEzIEoSxXOnRI08T1BrSE8u1FlceOxzpZe3pq2bn196QA0pFhOM M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EACa9f1CtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABFwDyBCIIiAQQSASdRASoUQicEGxqHYppegSugJYtihVhgA6Q0gWuCb4IX
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,606,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="132693584"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2012 08:28:42 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9I8SgOr031046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <siprec@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:28:42 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.251]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:28:41 -0500
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: "siprec@ietf.org" <siprec@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Two questions on draft-ietf-siprec-metadata
Thread-Index: AQHNrQqU5qNQ89wCc06Y7ZJvLCpf9A==
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:28:41 +0000
Message-ID: <E92E67B176B8B64D8D3A8F5E44E9D8F40DA8CC@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
x-originating-ip: [173.39.64.10]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19284.002
x-tm-as-result: No--33.105800-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <62ABD971908C8141A2ECDA93FD4A33DB@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [siprec] Two questions on draft-ietf-siprec-metadata
X-BeenThere: siprec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Recording Working Group Discussion List <siprec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/siprec>, <mailto:siprec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/siprec>
List-Post: <mailto:siprec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:siprec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec>, <mailto:siprec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:28:43 -0000
Hi All, I have two questions for which I need inputs on what we could do: 1) The object diagrams in the Appendix A have gone out of sync now due to changes in the model. It would take some time to re-draw. I wonder if they are really needed now ? I don't know if any one have paidsome attention to them ? Comments ? I feel the UML diagram is sufficient enough and we may not need the Appendix A. 2)What about Appendix B. Do we need that now given that we are having call flows in a separate draft ? My preference here to move the Appendix B to call flow ID and have both call flows + metadata in the same document (draft-ram-siprec-callflows). draft-ietf-siprec-metadata can just refer to call flows document for examples Let me know your comments on this. Regards, Ram
- [siprec] Two questions on draft-ietf-siprec-metad… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [siprec] Two questions on draft-ietf-siprec-m… Parthasarathi R