Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method

Peter Musgrave <musgravepj@gmail.com> Tue, 17 May 2011 15:38 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 B4EF0E06C6 for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 LrNlpuG0ohRN for <splices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:38:02 -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 9A316E069C for <splices@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so641553fxm.31 for <splices@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:38:00 -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=jjKqyXCLCWKYqqznadcq3ZjZ2NElfmwmF3KPPNVFU5o=; b=eDeVW2/DcLD65OHTRxX23lBbj9J/yuPDkHJfIwbrygysKhAWhcJR5OBCnoLCPE2w+b YU7ck46O0dq8VUxLI2J7LXWh7dmsphT3b+HrTCg1nKMx1Xinnurxk0Z4oBWd+sTEXw9v OiJOwKm22d8eXgTBU2xz9Ypcg/cixJcePqOss=
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=cp6pwhI7cMiN/bd8ieECL0g/SjAnaN+ikIib22Vtoh9IRi2SHrpLB7zZ5KxlyNW5dw /6rSFzJX/O2yfrVCFJzaHssd/bIBte3Gw4XvRVYsZDz8WRginmzEAOTV5WFP1lA8gD9p wEOoz8h6mWJTeB0Popk5b9qQvPC+8d9Q+Wi/Q=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.62.194 with SMTP id y2mr967040fah.123.1305646679172; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.103.67 with HTTP; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CBDA8EBF@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
References: <6369CB70BFD88942B9705AC1E639A33822CBDA8EBF@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:37:59 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinLjrS3DocT=_MbnDrHdoTLs7RuhQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Musgrave <musgravepj@gmail.com>
To: "Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151747698083a56a04a37a8e15
Cc: "splices@ietf.org" <splices@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method
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, 17 May 2011 15:53:01 -0000

Hi Rifaat,

Overall this is clearly described and I can see the utility.

I agree with other comments that explicit subscriptions are evil.

If find the method name INVOKE very unfortunate - since my brain when
parsing the example actually skipped the INVOKE message thinking it was an
INVITE. Semantically this method is somewhat like HTTP POST - but I think
overloading that term might not be viewed favourably. Maybe ACTION?

Do you foresee having actions which accept parameters? For example there is
a special case of an action 'sendvm' that could be generalized to something
like 'redirect vm'. I could also see a case where terminate might wish to
specify the error code to be used to reject the call.

Will the gory details of what a UA must do for each action be something
which is added to the document?

Regards,

Peter Musgrave



On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) <
rifatyu@avaya.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> As discussed in the last SPLICES WG meeting in Prague, the REFER method is
> overloaded and has limitations that prevents it from being the ideal method
> for action invocation.
>
> We have worked on the following new draft that defines a new SIP method to
> be used for invoking actions:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yusef-splices-invoke/
>
>
>
> We would appreciate it if people review the document and provide us with
> their feedback.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rifaat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> splices mailing list
> splices@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices
>
>