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

["Parthasarathi R (partr)" <[e-mail]>]

Henry,

The mail thread reference for multicast usecase is available at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/siprec/current/msg02051.html

Thanks
Partha 

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Lum [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 9:12 PM
To: Parthasarathi R (partr); Elwell, John; Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat)
Cc: [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: Monday, June 20, 2011 7:49 AM
> To: Elwell, John; Henry Lum; Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs in a CSG?
> 
> John,
> 
> <snip>
> [JRE] What is meant by "MS1 corresponds to MS3 or MS4"? What exactly
is
> this correspondence?
> <Partha> For example, Two audio stream (MS1, MS2) without content type

> in CS1 by participant1 has to be correspond to an another two audio 
> stream (MS3, MS4) without content type in CS2 by participant1 under 
> single CSG1. Here is the question how to identify MS1 to MS3 or MS4?
> </Partha>
> 
> [JRE] I can understand how the two MS are both part of  CSs from the 
> same CSG. I can also understand how they can both be transmitted by
the
> same Participant. I can also understand that they might be for the
same
> media type (e.g., video) and have same content (e.g., slides, current 
> speaker). All this is visible from the metadata.
> <Partha> We are in the same page till here. The missing piece is the 
> relationship for same multiple media types across CS if exist without 
> content type. Here, I may have concern about some specific case which
I
> could think of. 
>I'm fine with local MS id in case folks feel that the  above scenario 
>is just one of the corner case for the solution.
> 
> I could think of slightly modified proposal in your label attribute 
> extension. Say CSG1:MSid as the unique-id wherein CSG1 is the globally

> unique-id and MSid is the extension of label attribute wherein label 
> attribute for the given MS is same throughout the given CSG. </Partha>
> 
> 
> [JRE]What other aspect of correspondence requires the two MSs to have 
> the same identifier?
> <Partha> Ram mentioned about multicast scenario in another mail thread

> wherein correspondence is required between two MSs. </Partha>

[hlum] I couldn't find the email reference, but is the only
correspondence to require the same identifier is that a CS sends two
media streams with the same media type? Is there a way to further
qualify the media stream beyond media type? 

> 
>  Or putting the question another way, what harm is done if the two MSs

> have different identifiers?
> 
> 
> </snip>
> 
> Thanks
> Partha
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elwell, John [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 4:23 PM
> To: Parthasarathi R (partr); Henry Lum; Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat)
> Cc: [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: 17 June 2011 22:23
> > To: Henry Lum; Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); Elwell, John
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [siprec] Can an MS object span several CSs in a CSG?
> >
> > Henry,
> >
> > <snip>
> > However, I still find it confusing to allow an MS to be moved across

> > CS and participants. I worry that we can abuse the MS semantics to 
> > reuse MS as if it is a physical port of media since an MS is no
> longer
> 
> > tied to the lifetime of a CS. Keeping an MS to within a CS makes it 
> > clear about segments of a call when it gets transferred from person
> to
> 
> > person. It will be up to the SRS to stitch the segments of a call 
> > (multiple MS) together.
> > </snip>
> >
> > The clear demarcation exists for transfer from person to person
> exists
> 
> > using different CS-id after the transfer.
> >
> > I'm worried about stitching the segments of a call (session) in case

> > same media type with multiple MS exists between CS. Say media stream

> > of same media type MS1 & MS2 in CS1 of participant1 corresponds to
> MS3
> 
> > &
> > MS4 in CS2 of participant2 in single CSG, how to identify MS1 
> > corresponds to MS3 or MS4 in CS2. I agree that it is possible to say

> > that SRS should have some extended metadata mechanism to achieve to 
> > this but I preferred in case it is handled as part of metadata
> itself.
> [JRE] What is meant by "MS1 corresponds to MS3 or MS4"? What exactly
is
> this correspondence? I can understand how the two MS are both part of 
> CSs from the same CSG. I can also understand how they can both be 
> transmitted by the same Participant. I can also understand that they 
> might be for the same media type (e.g., video) and have same content 
> (e.g., slides, current speaker). All this is visible from the
metadata.
> What other aspect of correspondence requires the two MSs to have the 
> same identifier? Or putting the question another way, what harm is
done
> if the two MSs have different identifiers?
> 
> John
> 
> 
> >
> > As John mentioned below, the local-id is not going to save the 
> > bandwidth in the transfer scenario. Even I tried to see the example 
> > with full metadata XML update (instead of partial update) wherein
the
> > size of full message is less that local-id MS with partial update. I

> > attached the message for your reference.
> >
> > Also, global id (URN UUID) will be able to achieve all the 
> > functionality of local-id (XML:id) but not the other way around.
Say,
> > SRS does not want to see the relation between MS1 to MS3 or MS4 in
> the
> 
> > above scenario, global id is not going to stop anything.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Henry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:43 AM
> > 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
> > >>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > siprec mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > -------------------------------------------
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files attached may
> contain
> > confidential and proprietary information of Alcatel-Lucent and/or
its
> > affiliated entities. Access by the intended recipient only is 
> > authorized. Any liability arising from any party acting, or
> refraining
> > from acting, on any information contained in this e-mail is hereby 
> > excluded. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the 
> > sender immediately, destroy the original transmission and its 
> > attachments and do not disclose the contents to any other person, 
> > use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
> > medium.
> > Copyright in this e-mail and any attachments belongs to Alcatel-
> Lucent
> > and/or its affiliated entities.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > siprec mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
> >

					
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files attached may contain
confidential and proprietary information of Alcatel-Lucent and/or its
affiliated entities. Access by the intended recipient only is
authorized. Any liability arising from any party acting, or refraining
from acting, on any information contained in this e-mail is hereby
excluded. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately, destroy the original transmission and its
attachments and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it
for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.
Copyright in this e-mail and any attachments belongs to Alcatel-Lucent
and/or its affiliated entities.