Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method

"Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com> Wed, 18 May 2011 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rifatyu@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: splices@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: splices@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55457E06AC for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2011 05:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 K2VYnU2xLqZa for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2011 05:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D3EE06DD for <splices@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2011 05:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiABAEXB002HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACXTI5Md4hwozECm0uGGQSUXYpF
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,231,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="188909964"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 May 2011 08:54:52 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,231,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="653324707"
Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.22]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 May 2011 08:54:52 -0400
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.2.201]) by DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com ([135.11.52.22]) with mapi; Wed, 18 May 2011 08:54:51 -0400
From: "Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com>
To: "Parthasarathi R (partr)" <partr@cisco.com>, "splices@ietf.org" <splices@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:54:34 -0400
Thread-Topic: [splices] SIP INVOKE method
Thread-Index: AcwUlG21RcTDGyn+QBi7uyh9D1M1iwAIncUgAAH/MEAAJAxbgAABYJewAADBXvA=
Message-ID: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CBE5C3E5@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
References: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CBDA8EBF@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CBDA9433@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <A11921905DA1564D9BCF64A6430A6239054DE574@XMB-BGL-411.cisco.com> <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CBE5C341@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <A11921905DA1564D9BCF64A6430A6239054DE7DC@XMB-BGL-411.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A11921905DA1564D9BCF64A6430A6239054DE7DC@XMB-BGL-411.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method
X-BeenThere: splices@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Loosely-coupled SIP Devices \(splices\) working group discussion list" <splices.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/splices>, <mailto:splices-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/splices>
List-Post: <mailto:splices@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:splices-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices>, <mailto:splices-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 12:54:54 -0000

Inline...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parthasarathi R (partr) [mailto:partr@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:27 AM
> To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat); splices@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [splices] SIP INVOKE method
> 
> Rifaat,
> 
> SUBSCRIBE creates the dialog and within the created subscribe based dialog,
> INVOKE method (transaction) is sent from subscriber to perform the specific
> action based on the mentioned URN. Please correct me in case I misunderstand
> your proposal.
> 
Yes, that is correct.

> Please read inline
> 
> Thanks
> Partha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) [mailto:rifatyu@avaya.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 5:07 PM
> To: Parthasarathi R (partr); splices@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [splices] SIP INVOKE method
> 
> Inline...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Parthasarathi R (partr) [mailto:partr@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 2:57 PM
> > To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat); splices@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [splices] SIP INVOKE method
> >
> > Rifaat,
> >
> > I skimmed through your draft. I like the idea of controlling remote UA
> > action using new method (INVOKE). Few comments in the draft:
> >
> > 1) Sec 4.1: SUBSCRIBE with expire=0 is used to terminate INVOKE dialog
> > by INVOKE-Issuer. Whether it is ok to "INVOKE with expire=0" terminate
> > INVOKE dialog as it avoids the dependency on SUBSCRIBE message to terminate.
> >
> The new plan is to remove the implicit subscription.
> 
> <Partha> How is it possible for INVOKE-Issuer to abort or stop the action in
> case required? </Partha>
> 
One possible way is to define a parameter to the URN and then resend the INVOKE request.
For example, urn:invoke:whatever;abort

> 
> > 2) I foresee the complexity in creating explicit subscription because
> > two dialog creation methods (INVOKE & SUBSCRIBE) are used to make the
> > single action. It will be good in case INVOKE acts similar to INVITE
> > (Dialog creation & Action). INVITE has the implicit action like "ring
> > the phone" or "auto- answer" whereas INVOKE has explicitly mention the
> > action to be done in INVOKE- recipient.
> >
> I am not sure that I understand your comment, but with the new plan the INVOKE
> will NOT create a dialog.
> 
> 
> > 3) Do you foresee INVOKE dialog creation which change the action
> > within INVOKE dialog. For example: Following three actions using
> > single INVOKE dialog creation but updating the action based on the
> application information..
> >
> >      Action 1:  Create the call
> >      Action 2:  Hold the call
> >      Action 3:  Terminate the call
> >
> In this case, I expect the INVOKE-Issuer to first create a subscription and
> then to send the INVOKE requests in the context of that dialog.
> 
> <Partha>
> In case INVOKE is mid-dialog transaction within SUBSCRIBE dialog, then whether
> multiple simultaneous INVOKE operation is allowed or not. Example
>               1) INVOKE hold action
>               2) Even before INVOKE hold completion NOTIFY receives, INVOKE
> terminate call action
> 
> </Partha>
> 
Yes, that should be possible.

> > Thanks
> > Partha
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: splices-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:splices-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:57 PM
> > To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat); splices@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method Thank you all for your quick
> > review and feedback so far.
> > I will work on a new version of the draft that removes the implicit
> > subscription.
> >
> > Please, let me know if you have any other comments beside the implicit
> > subscription issue.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rifaat
> >
> >
> > From: splices-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:splices-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 9:15 AM
> > To: splices@ietf.org
> > Subject: [splices] SIP INVOKE method
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As discussed in the last SPLICES WG meeting in Prague, the REFER
> > method is overloaded and has limitations that prevents it from being
> > the ideal method for action invocation.
> > We have worked on the following new draft that defines a new SIP
> > method to be used for invoking actions:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yusef-splices-invoke/
> >
> > We would appreciate it if people review the document and provide us
> > with their feedback.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rifaat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >