Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Separate Devices proposal
Peter Musgrave <musgravepj@gmail.com> Tue, 24 May 2011 12:41 UTC
Return-Path: <musgravepj@gmail.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 70F02E06E9 for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2011 05:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.877, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, 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 WJjOFfB2+YCN for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2011 05:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E370E068C for <splices@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2011 05:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so5196277fxm.31 for <splices@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2011 05:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GrB0P4UhpQ35wOWHTnC00mpIp18WzIma9kq4nV5rOzc=; b=aKmvEmiXyGX/pPie7u/OUwls7P6+eZ2BZotCMFFLcmrN4406jdyuP0uvDNSYqDGkt2 TrFa/x6hwF18LFdmWPTXP2PUhclD8W7pj5QEGsrXXmmrLFhaNt11bJYnYoH9hbKd+Jxf d2o5EASBGBu5TBPY2lzMSMClid/0DK7nJc44w=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Hq7/ps0vXnIgj4MMo4r8UI9WWKJx7d0Z4GWCDHIPrBwhABAskXw8nOWaF3/uJuqO2G TkD07QaMPj7rxnfjtU/J8TzsOavK6QEPgNV/dmTwCRg5dNldlegp1z1NjBrc7p6mqTQ7 5sc6Mc3PA6JvC88siPXPRCT/oxo662zM9RzQA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.33.6 with SMTP id f6mr3685994fad.85.1306240912226; Tue, 24 May 2011 05:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.116.209 with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2011 05:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DDA5C19.5040405@cisco.com>
References: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CC01E548@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4DD87FBF.5010504@cisco.com> <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CC7FCE3E@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4DD97B5D.7040404@cisco.com> <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CC7FCE75@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4DD9CE66.8010204@cisco.com> <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CC7FB9A1@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4DDA5C19.5040405@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 08:41:52 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTik09_aC9L+mrM5NJuJsDkZ-fOU5LQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Musgrave <musgravepj@gmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015174780bc90785a04a404e914"
Cc: "splices@ietf.org" <splices@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Separate Devices proposal
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, 24 May 2011 12:41:55 -0000
I agree with Paul that: 1) This works ok. 2) INVOKE is more mechanism than a new header. [A method is a bigger deal than a header] I'd also observe in a "real politik" sense that the potential energy barrier to geting a new SIP method in place will likely be significant. I would expect it would have to be a dispatch-ed WG all on it's own. People will decide to either use it to solve world hunger - or decide that it is the root of all evil. Under "out there" ideas - would it be possible to put the Action header in a PUBLISH? Would this allow the same signalling semantics as INVOKE without the need for a new method? Peter Musgrave On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 5/23/2011 8:56 AM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) wrote: > >> I do not see how this proposal is "less mechanism" than the original >> proposal, but I tend to agree with you that this might be "a matter of >> taste". >> > > The devil is in the details here, and we don't have enough details. > So its all in the set of assumptions one is making. > > In the end we probably aren't going to standardize services - just > mechanisms for creating services. But perhaps we will have an "examples" doc > that shows how the mechanisms might be used to create a range of interesting > services such as these. If so, I would think we would need to work through > each one in detail, carefully defining all the assumptions about the > environment. > > And that is really what it takes to decide on each particular "action", > because those seem to be rather specialized. At the moment I don't have a > vision of a clear and obvious set of actions that enable all the interesting > services. Its more a matter of crafting an action to support one or a few > services. I wish it was more clear cut than that. Maybe it will become so > with more study. > > Thanks, > Paul > > > Regards, >> Rifaat >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Paul Kyzivat [pkyzivat@cisco.com] >> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:03 PM >> To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) >> Cc: splices@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Separate Devices >> proposal >> >> On 5/22/2011 8:49 PM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) wrote: >> >>> >>> You are then proposing the following: >>> >>> >>> Alice used her *phone* to answer the incoming call >>> | | | | >>> | | 200 OK [Audio] | | >>> | |-------------------->| | >>> | | | 200 OK [Audio] | >>> | | |-------------------->| >>> | CANCEL | | | >>> |<------------------------------------------| | >>> | | | | >>> | |<---dialog1------------------------------->| >>> | |<======audio==============================>| >>> | | | | >>> | INVITE Alert-Info and [Video] | | >>> |<--------------------| | | >>> >>> What happens here? >>> Will the user be required to take an action on the PC to accept the >>> INVITE? >>> Or you are expecting the PC to provide an answer without user >>> intervention? >>> >> >> Could be handled various ways. >> >> The alert-info could suggest auto-answer. (The PC *honoring* such a >> request might be conditional on who it comes. But even if not honored >> for auto-answer it might still alert *differently*.) If it wasn't >> auto-answered, and returned 180, it could be followed up with an INVOKE >> to force the answer. >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> >> | 200 OK [Video] | | | >>> |<--------------------| | | >>> | | re-INVITE [A/V] | | >>> | |-------------------->| | >>> | | | re-INVITE [A/V] | >>> | | |-------------------->| >>> | | | 200 OK [A/V] | >>> | | 200 OK [A/V] |<--------------------| >>> | |<--------------------| | >>> | ACK | | | >>> |<--------------------| | | >>> | | | | >>> |<------dialog2------>|<---dialog1------------------------------->| >>> | | | | >>> | |<======audio==============================>| >>> |<============================video==============================>| >>> | | | | >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat@cisco.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 5:09 PM >>>> To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) >>>> Cc: splices@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Separate Devices >>>> proposal >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/22/2011 2:40 PM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Because a new INVITE will probably cause the PC to present the user >>>>> with a >>>>> >>>> UI component and wait for the users input. >>>> >>>> Well, I suppose you would want the PC to indicate what is going on in >>>> the UI in *some* way. But probably not exactly the same as getting a new >>>> call. >>>> >>>> That could be handled via appropriate Alert-Info. To some extent this is >>>> a matter of taste. I am inclined to prefer an economy of mechanism, and >>>> I think the alert-info feels like less mechanism than the particular >>>> INVOKE mechanism used in this scenario. (The invoke mechanism used here >>>> requires the phone to assume that the PC is aware of the dialog, and >>>> able to associate it with the appropriate contact address for doing the >>>> invite.) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>>> Rifaat >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: splices-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:splices-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>>>> Behalf >>>>>> >>>>> Of >>>> >>>>> Paul Kyzivat >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:15 PM >>>>>> To: splices@ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Separate >>>>>> Devices >>>>>> proposal >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess all of that can work. But for the last part, if the phone >>>>>> knows >>>>>> enough to send the invoke to the pc, why can't it just send an INVITE >>>>>> to >>>>>> the pc? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Paul >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/21/2011 8:56 AM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are still working on a new version of the INVOKE document that >>>>>>> removes >>>>>>> >>>>>> the implicit subscription. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Meanwhile I would like to continue the discussion of the various >>>>>>> possible >>>>>>> >>>>>> uses cases. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The following is a proposal for Answering an A/V Call Using Two >>>>>>> Separate >>>>>>> >>>>>> Devices. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Rifaat >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alice Alice Proxy >>>>>>> Bob >>>>>>> PC Desk Phone >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> Both Alice's devices subscribe to the reg event package, which allows >>>>>>> each >>>>>>> >>>>>> device to >>>>>> >>>>>>> discover the capabilities of the other device based on the feature >>>>>>> tags >>>>>>> >>>>>> provided by each device. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The Desk Phone knows that the PC supports Video, while the PC knows >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>> >>>>> Desk Phone only supports audio. >>>>>> >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | SUBSCRIBE reg | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | |-------------------->| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | 200 OK | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | |<--------------------| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | SUBSCRIBE reg | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |------------------------------------------>| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | 200 OK | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<------------------------------------------| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> The two devices also subscribe to the dialog of each other. >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | SUBSCRIBE dialog | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |-------------------->| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | 200 OK | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<--------------------| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | SUBSCRIBE dialog | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<--------------------| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | 200 OK | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |-------------------->| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> The scenario starts with an A/V call from Bob to Alice >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | INVITE Alice >>>>>>> [A/V] | >>>>>>> | | >>>>>>> |<--------------------| >>>>>>> | | INVITE Alice [A/V] | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | |<--------------------| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | INVITE Alice [A/V] | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<------------------------------------------| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (*) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's assume that Alice used her PC to answer the incoming call >>>>>>> The PC instructs the phone to answer the audio call >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | INVOKE Action: >>>>>>> >>>>>> urn:invoke:call:answer;media=audio;transducer=speaker|headset >>>>>> >>>>>>> |-------------------->| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | 200 OK | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<--------------------| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | 200 OK [Audio] | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | |-------------------->| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | 200 OK [Audio] >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | >>>>>>> |-------------------->| >>>>>>> | CANCEL | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<------------------------------------------| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<---dialog1------------------------------->| >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<======audio==============================>| >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> The PC then adds Video to the existing audio call. >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | INVITE with Join [Video] | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |-------------------->| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | 100 | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<--------------------| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | re-INVITE [A/V] | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | |-------------------->| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | re-INVITE [A/V] >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | >>>>>>> |-------------------->| >>>>>>> | | | 200 OK [A/V] >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | 200 OK [A/V] >>>>>>> |<--------------------| >>>>>>> | |<--------------------| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | 200 OK [Video] | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<--------------------| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> >>>>>>> |<------dialog2------>|<---dialog1------------------------------->| >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<======audio==============================>| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> |<============================video==============================>| >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The scenario continues after the (*) above >>>>>>> Let's assume that Alice used her phone to answer the incoming call. >>>>>>> The phone answers the audio call >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | 200 OK [Audio] | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | |-------------------->| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | 200 OK [Audio] >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | >>>>>>> |-------------------->| >>>>>>> | CANCEL | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<------------------------------------------| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<---dialog1------------------------------->| >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<======audio==============================>| >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> The phone then instructs the PC to initiate a video call to join the >>>>>>> >>>>>> existing call >>>>>> >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | INVOKE Action: >>>>>>> urn:invoke:call:join;media=video;dialog=dialog1 >>>>>>> |<--------------------| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | 200 OK | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |-------------------->| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> The PC then adds Video to the existing audio call. >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | INVITE with Join [Video] | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |-------------------->| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | 100 | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<--------------------| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | re-INVITE [A/V] | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | |-------------------->| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | re-INVITE [A/V] >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | >>>>>>> |-------------------->| >>>>>>> | | | 200 OK [A/V] >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | 200 OK [A/V] >>>>>>> |<--------------------| >>>>>>> | |<--------------------| >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | 200 OK [Video] | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<--------------------| | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> >>>>>>> |<------dialog2------>|<---dialog1------------------------------->| >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> |<======audio==============================>| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> |<============================video==============================>| >>>>>>> | | | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >
- [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Separat… Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
- Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Sep… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Sep… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Sep… Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
- Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Sep… Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
- Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Sep… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Sep… Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
- Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Sep… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Sep… Peter Musgrave
- Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Sep… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Sep… Peter Musgrave
- Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Sep… Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
- Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Sep… Simon Pietro Romano