Re: [splices] Using Two Separate Devices to Start a Conversation proposal

"Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com> Thu, 30 June 2011 22:06 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 957BD11E80D8 for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.279
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.320, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 GUoec6Ce7pFa for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:06:43 -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 00E4D11E807E for <splices@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAOTwDE7GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABRp1x3iHijfQKbEoYxBJdCizc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,454,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="288117622"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2011 18:06:41 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX4.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.35]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2011 18:05:45 -0400
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.2.172]) by DC-US1HCEX4.global.avaya.com ([135.11.52.35]) with mapi; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:06:38 -0400
From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:06:38 -0400
Thread-Topic: [splices] Using Two Separate Devices to Start a Conversation proposal
Thread-Index: Acwv6s2L+9CaBjDoT5i/t0GnGcsxLgHhnnUg
Message-ID: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B222B1F571D@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
References: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CCE270F5@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <BANLkTin+7fnDjmsfZVWKsmt631B7toRYVw@mail.gmail.com> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B222907E9A1@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <1C6C5AB3-6085-4CCA-9F1D-8BA5D98ED651@gmail.com> <4DED2EFA.20004@cisco.com> <BANLkTimfP2EaJZtPcjOp6s4v+Gk87vetGw@mail.gmail.com>, <4E0051B1.1030007@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E0051B1.1030007@ericsson.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] Using Two Separate Devices to Start a Conversation 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: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:06:43 -0000

>> As Dale mentioned, this also depends on the other end doing the "right
>> thing" with this case. It is a leap of faith to assume it will realize it
>> should accept both streams and use one for input and the other for output.
>>
>> ISTM its at least as likely that it would accept the first stream, reject
>> the second, and then have only a one-way "conversation".
>
> OK, I understand the problem right now.  The problem is that this is a
> special kind of "Join" operation.  It is kind of a join, but not
> quite.
>
> The operation we are after is perhaps similar to 3.3.8 Far-Fork in RFC 5850:
>
> I suspect instead of Join, we need a new primitive, lets call it
> Splice or Merge which requests the UAS to add the media in the INVITE
> into the dialog that is referenced.

OK, now I see the problem with using Join.

UA A1 sends an INVITE (requesting only audio) to UA B (which supports
both audio and video).

UA A2 sends an INVITE (requesting only video) to UA B (which supports
both audio and video), with Join to the first dialog.

Then we should expect that UA B will send its audio to A1 and its
video to A2, within the semantics of Join.

The difficulty is that UA B still sees the situation as two different
dialogs.  E.g., if A1 sends a REFER/Refer-To: C to B, the A1-B dialog
will be replaced by the C-B dialog, but the A2-B dialog will be
undisturbed.

Which is not the behavior we want if we are trying to logically bond
A1 and A2 to act as a single UA.

Using Join would have been convenient as it is already defined, and
theoretically, UAs already support it.

Dale