Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1

"Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com> Tue, 14 June 2011 16:30 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 57B1311E80C9 for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.165
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.434, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 49ZxGAlbGMYo for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F205511E8096 for <splices@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhsBADWM903GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABSl0yOdXetcAKcEIYkBJY8iw8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,365,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="251323266"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2011 12:30:18 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,365,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="632401398"
Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.22]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2011 12:30:17 -0400
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.192]) by DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com ([135.11.52.22]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:30:17 -0400
From: "Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>, "splices@ietf.org" <splices@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:30:15 -0400
Thread-Topic: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1
Thread-Index: AcwnpwcQzAQM1kbgRte4gzk3XtCf/wDCGArg
Message-ID: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CDA812B8@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
References: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CD81384C@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4DF27461.8060204@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DF27461.8060204@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="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: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:30:38 -0000

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the detailed review and feedback.
I agree with you that this is the next thing that we need to describe in details.
I will be working on providing more details to explain our thinking around the various actions and parameters.

Regards,
 Rifaat



> -----Original Message-----
> From: splices-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:splices-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 3:46 PM
> 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