Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1

"Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com> Tue, 14 June 2011 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <dworley@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 7AD2311E80C6 for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.037
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.471, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 OomdmzAFTthk for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:36:13 -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 DF43011E818B for <splices@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EALea903GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABSplN3iHOkWAKcBIYkBJY8iw8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,365,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="284977083"
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 13:36:11 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,365,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="632423671"
Received: from dc-us1hcex2.us1.avaya.com (HELO DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.21]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2011 13:36:11 -0400
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.192]) by DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:36:10 -0400
From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>, "Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>, "splices@ietf.org" <splices@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:32:59 -0400
Thread-Topic: [splices] SIP INVOKE method v1
Thread-Index: AcwnpwHyWdPZ0GtcQdet0Lc+UVQPIgCJvnyQADiYGNAAANdDQAABWEfr
Message-ID: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B222907E9D3@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E30C229785C2@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 17:36:13 -0000

> From: Hutton, Andrew [andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com]
> 
> 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.

I'd feel much more comfortable if we settled on either:

1) a small number of actions

2) to use an appropriate subset of an existing CTI standard

In the latter case, could someone provide a pointer to the standard?

Essentially, INVOKE is to provide an interface to a command set, and
we need to have some idea what the outer limits of the command set
will be.  Only then can we choose a good way to represent the commands
within a SIP request.

Dale