Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Separate Devices proposal
"Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com> Wed, 25 May 2011 12:33 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 7FB8DE0657 for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2011 05:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.321, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 4BXH+Xd0zrnB for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2011 05:33:04 -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 2A572E0655 for <splices@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2011 05:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkIBAHr23E2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACCZpR/g0GLBHiqMwKbQoYcBJUChASGSw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.65,266,1304308800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="281690483"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 May 2011 08:33:03 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.65,266,1304308800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="656016614"
Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX4.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.35]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 May 2011 08:33:03 -0400
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.192]) by DC-US1HCEX4.global.avaya.com ([135.11.52.35]) with mapi; Wed, 25 May 2011 08:33:02 -0400
From: "Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com>
To: Peter Musgrave <musgravepj@gmail.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 08:32:31 -0400
Thread-Topic: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Separate Devices proposal
Thread-Index: AcwaD/fTLCXe2IroSlmJAUEw6xMrKQAx2fkQ
Message-ID: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CCCB8E50@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.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> <BANLkTik09_aC9L+mrM5NJuJsDkZ-fOU5LQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik09_aC9L+mrM5NJuJsDkZ-fOU5LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CCCB8E50DCUS1MBEX4glo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:33:06 -0000
Hi Peter, >2) INVOKE is more mechanism than a new header. [A method is a bigger deal than a header] Did you really think that I do not understand that defining a method is a bigger deal than defining a header? :) My comment was about the specifics of the call flow and has nothing to do with defining a method or a header. Regards, Rifaat From: Peter Musgrave [mailto:musgravepj@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:42 AM To: Paul Kyzivat Cc: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat); splices@ietf.org Subject: Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Separate Devices proposal 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<mailto: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<mailto:pkyzivat@cisco.com>] Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:03 PM To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) Cc: splices@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:pkyzivat@cisco.com>] Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 5:09 PM To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) Cc: splices@ietf.org<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:splices@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices _______________________________________________ splices mailing list splices@ietf.org<mailto:splices@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices _______________________________________________ splices mailing list splices@ietf.org<mailto: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