Re: [siprec] Adoption of material fromdraft-ram-siprec-metadata-format-02

Charles,

I don't recall whether we discussed non-SIP means for transporting metadata. We certainly discussed transmitting it separately from INVITE/UPDATE, and concluded that in most cases metadata changes would coincide with SDP updates, and therefore other SIP methods (such as INFO) would be less efficient.

By having a separate channel (HTTP) for metadata, there is the issue of synchronizing it with SDP updates. Certainly that would be achievable, but does it make the solution unnecessarily complicated?

XML document transport in SIP messages is certainly nothing new.

Furthermore, we have had only this one draft on metadata format/transport for several months. As the only candidate, we seemed to have reached, by default, a situation where it is only a question of when we adopt it, not if. So any other solution would require a draft very quickly, so that we can compare and contrast.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com] 
> Sent: 20 June 2011 16:41
> To: Elwell, John; siprec@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [siprec] Adoption of material 
> fromdraft-ram-siprec-metadata-format-02
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> One general comment/question I have received from web 
> application savvy
> coworkers with whom I have discussed the contents of this 
> draft is that
> the metadata is essentially a document and HTTP already has 
> well defined
> mechanisms for document sharing and updating, so why not exchange an
> HTTP address for the document and leverage those mechanisms instead of
> sending all the metadata within SIP messages. My assumption 
> is that the
> requirement is to have a SIP based solutions that does not require an
> HTTP server. Is that accurate?
> 
> Thanks,
> Charles
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: siprec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:siprec-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Elwell, John
> > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 4:02 AM
> > To: siprec@ietf.org
> > Subject: [siprec] Adoption of material
> fromdraft-ram-siprec-metadata-format-02
> > 
> > Although there are some open issues, to be discussed during 
> Thursday's
> call, I would like the WG to
> > consider whether material in draft-ram-siprec-metadata-format-02 is
> ready for adoption into draft-
> > ietf-siprec-metadata, i.e., bring it under WG control. In 
> particular,
> between now and the call, please
> > consider whether:
> > - the material is heading roughly in an acceptable direction;
> > - there are any issues that really should be closed before adoption;
> > - there are any aspects of the draft that should not be adopted at
> this time.
> > 
> > If, on the call or shortly afterwards, we can agree on adoption, the
> authors of the two drafts would
> > be asked to perform a merger and publish a new version of
> draft-ietf-siprec-metadata before the cut-
> > off for IETF#81 (2011-07-11).
> > 
> > John
> > _______________________________________________
> > siprec mailing list
> > siprec@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
> 