Re: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Separate Devices proposal
"Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com> Mon, 23 May 2011 12:56 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 9334EE0791 for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 05:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 w1bG+it1kQmt for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 05:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6463CE06A8 for <splices@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 05:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUBABJY2k3GmAcF/2dsb2JhbACXZo4+d6ddAppIhhkElF2KRQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,256,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="189627015"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 May 2011 08:56:19 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,256,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="625173874"
Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.22]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 May 2011 08:56:19 -0400
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.192]) by DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com ([135.11.52.22]) with mapi; Mon, 23 May 2011 08:56:18 -0400
From: "Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 08:56:18 -0400
Thread-Topic: [splices] Answering an A/V Call Using Two Separate Devices proposal
Thread-Index: AcwY9fMjzXFqQJgZRauC1dkxrEkfoAAUfv8E
Message-ID: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CC7FB9A1@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>
In-Reply-To: <4DD9CE66.8010204@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
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: Mon, 23 May 2011 12:56:22 -0000
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". 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] 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