Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1

"Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com> Tue, 14 June 2011 16:32 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 4C48811E809A for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.757
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.757 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.191, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033]
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 jBGm20zX5nID for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8ED11E8098 for <splices@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhsBAHiM903GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABSl0yOdXeIc6R9ApwQhiQEljyLDw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,365,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="284963124"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2011 12:32:14 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,365,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="632402007"
Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX4.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.35]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2011 12:32:14 -0400
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.192]) by DC-US1HCEX4.global.avaya.com ([135.11.52.35]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:32:14 -0400
From: "Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>, "splices@ietf.org" <splices@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:32:13 -0400
Thread-Topic: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1
Thread-Index: AcwnpwHyWdPZ0GtcQdet0Lc+UVQPIgCJvnyQADiYGNA=
Message-ID: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CDA812C4@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
References: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CD81384C@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4DF27461.8060204@cisco.com> <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E30C22977E6A@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E30C22977E6A@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
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 16:32:16 -0000

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