Re: [splices] INVOKE Actions Scope

Cullen Jennings <> Wed, 22 June 2011 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CB2228006 for <>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.593
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DD0l4iOrm7Y0 for <>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD62228003 for <>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1936; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1308762681; x=1309972281; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=+5hW5nTNOgnPtYRywKSpig6xHBZw48seK+8j1l8BELc=; b=Cw4Btlv/01rGBbreGjtdViLbL5vM42ILRgxHVkGRcxO6eY90Sg5vyD/o or+mQaVUbc/x9DGDbOZmYNtNyRrJYHRCtXV3wWHiVAXyKFlTOOpA4HebG OLZ/G5TWSa5NoNE/9NHNYdcUDt+rPpcPT1TleDltOiQilhCVHOAl1d5SA k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvcHAMshAk5Io8US/2dsb2JhbABUmDeOWXeIbAehbJ5Nhi0EhyWKRZAs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,407,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="37196445"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 22 Jun 2011 17:11:19 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p5MHAn5r022571; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:11:17 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Cullen Jennings <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:11:18 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [splices] INVOKE Actions Scope
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Loosely-coupled SIP Devices \(splices\) working group discussion list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:11:23 -0000

There are a few features that most PBX can do today there is no standardized way to use SIP to signal the changes to sip dialog state needed to implement these features.  I think we should pick an initial small set of features that are often used and supported and do theses - that was what I hoped this draft did. It proposes a few things, probably some need to be specified in more detail, perhaps there are a few more that people think should be added, perhaps a few proposed should be removed. 

So my proposal for scope is just the scope we have in this draft which I would argue is a subset of the "An Action can manipulate a dialog or a multimedia session." I view all the action here as changing the SIP dialog state and what changes happen to the multimedia session being a side effect of that. 

On Jun 18, 2011, at 6:37 , Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) wrote:

> Hi,
> I would like to start a discussion that I hope would allow us to converge on an approriate scope for the first release of this draft.
> The following is my first attempt at defining this scope:
> 1. An Action can manipulate a dialog or a multimedia session.
> 2. An Action can manipulate one or more dialogs or sessions at the same time.
> 3. An Action can manipulate the state of a physical "feature" of a device, e.g. transducer.
> 4. An Action can invoke a well-defined telephony "feature" on the UA, e.g.hold.
> 5. An Action cannot replace an existing SIP mechanism, e.g. offer/answer.
> 6. An Action cannot dictate the UI behavior of the target UA.
> Any thoughts?
> Thanks,
> Rifaat
> _______________________________________________
> splices mailing list

Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to: