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

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

Hi all,

I have raised non-SIP (HTTP, XMPP) mechanism for metadata as an open
item in SIPREC architecture document before IETF-80. The related link is
as follows:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/siprec/current/msg01608.html. The
conclusion of IETF-80 SIPREC meeting is to use SIP as a mechanism which
is discussed at slide-7 of SIPREC architecture
(www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/siprec-2.ppt). I attached the
specific slide content and notes of the meeting for your reference.

Thanks
Partha

Note:
Slide contents:
01 draft states some examples of how metadata could be delivered to the
SRC
SIP Headers. 
SDP.
Event Package.
INFO Package.
Non SIP Means.

Proposal - We seem to be converging on using INVITE/UPDATE on the RS
Dialog so state this. Keep non SIP means although outside SIPREC scope.


Conclusion in IETF-80:

Proposal: List INVITE/UPDATE + non-SIP means only for metadata delivery?
  Hadriel Kaplan: Agrees, but don't mention specific methods
    (e.g. INVITE/UPDATE)
  Keith Drage: Clarified that this repeats stuff in the protocol
document 

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Leon Portman
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:32 PM
To: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [siprec] Adoptionof material
fromdraft-ram-siprec-metadata-format-02

Actually we had lot of discussion about this issue (metadata over SIP or
over dedicated web service/HTTP) both internally and with partners.

Main advantages  (what I remember ) for SIP approach are as follows:
1. Simplicity, only one interface to implement, troubleshoot, secure and
configure between SRC and SRS 2. RS SIP request is self-contained, it
includes all relevant info in order to SRS to decide how to do recording
. For example participants identity, location. So no need for SRS to
correlate different messages from different interfaces 3. Footprint on
SRC. For some implementation it is not feasible to have both SIP and
HTTP stacks


Leon

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 9:00 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [siprec] Adoption of material
fromdraft-ram-siprec-metadata-format-02

Charles,

IIRC, the major driving forces were timeliness and synchronicity of
metadata with the actual signaling, especially when initially
establishing a RS, so that suitable decisions can be made about whether
to record a session, etc.

AFAIK the avoidance of an HTTP server in the SRS wasn't a concern. (Its
assumed in general to be a very capable box, and probably has an HTTP
interface for querying, though that is out of our scope for now.)
Avoiding an http client in the src might be slightly more significant,
but I don't think that was much of a concern either.

Could we have skinned this cat with an http approach? Probably.
Obviously we had a lot more sip expertise than http expertise in the
group. That may have been an influence as well.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 6/20/2011 11:40 AM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Elwell, John
>> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 4:02 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> 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
>> [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