Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1
"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Wed, 15 June 2011 09:01 UTC
Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 06E081F0C40 for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 xvryfSWL5MgU for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail27.messagelabs.com (mail27.messagelabs.com [193.109.254.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C8ED1F0C35 for <splices@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-27.messagelabs.com!1308128492!34971616!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [62.134.46.10]
Received: (qmail 15919 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2011 09:01:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO senmx12-mx) (62.134.46.10) by server-5.tower-27.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2011 09:01:32 -0000
Received: from MCHP063A.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.37.61]) by senmx12-mx (Server) with ESMTP id 0708023F03E6; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:01:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP058A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.57]) by MCHP063A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.61]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:01:42 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: "Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>, "splices@ietf.org" <splices@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:01:38 +0200
Thread-Topic: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1
Thread-Index: AcwnpwHyWdPZ0GtcQdet0Lc+UVQPIgCJvnyQADiYGNAAANdDQAABoVVgAB/pxSA=
Message-ID: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E30C22978813@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
References: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CD81384C@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4DF27461.8060204@cisco.com> <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E30C22977E6A@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CDA812C4@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E30C229785C2@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CDA8144A@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CDA8144A@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1
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, 15 Jun 2011 09:01:45 -0000
Hi Rifaat, I don't understand the argument as the header/body issue makes no difference to what gets standardized and architecturally it is much cleaner to tunnel the non SIP related application stuff in a body that to use a SIP header for the same purpose. Having said that I still don't think that either mechanism would fall within the SPLICES charter. Regards Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) [mailto:rifatyu@avaya.com] > Sent: 14 June 2011 18:42 > To: Hutton, Andrew; Paul Kyzivat; splices@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 > > Andy, > > > The list of potential actions and associated parameters is huge and > for this > > kind of problem I believe that an XML body would be a much better > solution. I > > guess I much prefer XML to BNF. > > > This actually calls for a header rather than an XML body, because the > idea is to control what get standardized and what not and clearly > define the actions that get standardized. With an XML body you actually > create a tunnel over SIP and you lose control over what get defined. > > Regards, > Rifaat > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hutton, Andrew [mailto:andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 1:18 PM > > To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat); Paul Kyzivat; splices@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 > > > > Hi Rifaat, > > > > I am not saying that the current proposal is not extensible but I > believe that > > an XML body would be a much better solution to the extensibility > problem that > > using a SIP header. > > > > The list of potential actions and associated parameters is huge and > for this > > kind of problem I believe that an XML body would be a much better > solution. I > > guess I much prefer XML to BNF. > > > > There is also an architectural issue as the actions don't relate > directly to > > the management of the SIP session and therefore most likely need to > passed to > > the application layer in the SIP UA to handle. It is much cleaner > > architecturally if the body can simply be removed and passed to the > > responsible component in the UA rather than the SIP component having > to > > extract the information from SIP headers. > > > > Regards > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) [mailto:rifatyu@avaya.com] > > > Sent: 14 June 2011 17:32 > > > To: Hutton, Andrew; Paul Kyzivat; splices@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 > > > > > > Andy, > > > > > > > The issue is I believe extensibility which any mechanism for > > > > invoking services will need and this is the reason why an XML > body > > > would be > > > > better than using SIP headers. > > > > > > What makes you think that the current proposal is not extensible? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Rifaat > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: splices-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:splices-bounces@ietf.org] > On > > > Behalf Of > > > > Hutton, Andrew > > > > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:04 AM > > > > To: Paul Kyzivat; splices@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > Whilst I still question whether the mechanism described in this > draft > > > actually > > > > falls within the SPLICES WG charter as it defines new mechanism I > > > have a few > > > > comments. > > > > > > > > I tend to agree with Paul's comments below but would go further > to > > > say that > > > > even some of the supposedly simply actions such as "decline" & > > > "ignore" are > > > > also features which will be difficult to agree the semantics for. > All > > > of the > > > > actions will need to be specified rigorously a quick look at > ECMA-269 > > > which > > > > specifies these kind of services for CSTA will give you an idea > of > > > what would > > > > need to be done. I don't believe that even in the CSTA world > which > > > defines a > > > > very large number of services the services "ignore" or "decline" > were > > > > specified. > > > > > > > > With regard to the discussion on headers vs body the draft > states. > > > > > > > > "There has been some discussion on the list on the question of > header > > > field vs > > > > message body. This is not the real issue, as either could > > > conceivably be > > > > used. Instead, the main issue is what is being invoked: is it a > > > named > > > > feature/action/event, or is it a script". > > > > > > > > I must have missed the discussion about scripting but I don't > think > > > this is > > > > the issue. The issue is I believe extensibility which any > mechanism > > > for > > > > invoking services will need and this is the reason why an XML > body > > > would be > > > > better than using SIP headers. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: splices-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:splices- > bounces@ietf.org] On > > > > > Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat > > > > > Sent: 10 June 2011 20:46 > > > > > To: splices@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 > > > > > > > > > > This is getting better with age! > > > > > > > > > > Splitting off the subscription is good. > > > > > > > > > > An area that still needs work is in the semantics of the urns. > > > > > Some of them are more clear than others. Some are "limited" in > ways > > > > > that > > > > > might not matter to some but that could prove a problem in the > end. > > > > > Specifically: > > > > > > > > > > o Answer call - urn:invoke:call:answer > > > > > o Terminate call - urn:invoke:call:terminate > > > > > o Decline call - urn:invoke:call:decline > > > > > o Ignore call - urn:invoke:call:ignore > > > > > > > > > > The above need some elaboration, but I think its just work - > > > probably > > > > > anybody who does it will end up with an equivalent result. > > > > > > > > > > o Send call to VM - urn:invoke:call:sendvm > > > > > > > > > > VM is a "feature", and we haven't standardized features much, > > > except > > > > > for > > > > > bliss. How does one know if the recipient understands VM and > what > > > to do > > > > > to send a call there? What if there are multiple VM options > (e.g. > > > what > > > > > to say, etc.) And what if the call isn't a voice call. (Maybe > VM > > > now > > > > > means voice/video mail. But the "call" could be IM.) > > > > > > > > > > o Hold call - urn:invoke:call:hold > > > > > o Unhold call - urn:invoke:call:unhold > > > > > o Mute call - urn:invoke:call:mute > > > > > o Unmute call - urn:invoke:call:unmute > > > > > > > > > > Similarly these are all "features" that we all have some > > > expectations > > > > > about, but that are not rigorously defined. (But perhaps > > > Mute/Unmute > > > > > could be formalized by using the 'transducer' option. > > > > > (Transducer=none?) > > > > > > > > > > My concern with all these "features" is that we are being put > into > > > a > > > > > box > > > > > where we must either: > > > > > - define them with sufficient rigor > > > > > - fall back on "do what I mean", which has proved to be a bad > idea, > > > > > because not everybody has the same notion of what they mean. > > > > > > > > > > o Conference - urn:invoke:conference:add > > > > > - urn:invoke:conference:remove > > > > > > > > > > This one may be clearer due to the existence of xcon specs. > > > > > > > > > > Regarding action parameters: > > > > > > > > > > o media=audio|video|audvid > > > > > > > > > > I'm troubled by audvid. I would rather see "audio,video". > > > Specifically, > > > > > what is the namespace here, and what does specifying it mean? I > > > think > > > > > the namespace could be: one or more values allowable as the > <media> > > > > > parameter in the m-line in SDP. > > > > > > > > > > Defining exactly what it means when present is a little harder. > > > When > > > > > answering a call that has an offer, I guess it could mean: > refuse > > > any > > > > > m-lines with media type that doesn't match one of these, and > accept > > > as > > > > > many of the remaining as you can. > > > > > > > > > > For answering an offerless invite, I guess it could mean: offer > > > > > whatever > > > > > media you are capable of offering that match one of these, but > > > don't > > > > > offer anything that doesn't match. > > > > > > > > > > Is there likely to be a need to get more specific? E.g. about > what > > > > > codecs to use? (Hopefully not - that could get very messy.) > > > > > > > > > > o transducer=speaker|headset > > > > > > > > > > My deskphone has three possibilities: speaker|headset|handset. > > > > > And I'm far from certain this is exhaustive. (The clue wg is > > > defining a > > > > > much more complex environment.) This at least needs to be > > > extensible. > > > > > We > > > > > may need some sort of extended model of a UA that includes this > > > sort of > > > > > stuff. > > > > > > > > > > o target=<AOR> > > > > > o direction=recvonly|sendonly|sendrecv > > > > > o abort > > > > > > > > > > None of this is intended as objection to the work so far. Its > just > > > a > > > > > start at identifying what else there is to do. The whole notion > of > > > > > naming features to invoke causes me the most concern. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > On 6/10/2011 3:08 PM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > We have just submitted a new version of the SIP INVOKE method > > > draft > > > > > that > > > > > > does not include implicit subscription. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yusef-splices-invoke/ > > > > > > > > > > > > We would appreciate it if you review the document and provide > us > > > with > > > > > > your feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Rifaat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > splices mailing list > > > > > > splices@ietf.org > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > splices mailing list > > > > > splices@ietf.org > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > splices mailing list > > > > splices@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Paul Kyzivat
- [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Alan Johnston
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Peter Musgrave
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 R.Jesske
- Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1 Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)