Hi, Can you tell me where I can find the MLA draft work (draft) as its not on the Bliss status pages?
Thanks Chuck Chaney > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of ext Shida Schubert > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:44 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [BLISS] Minutes from MLA meeting:08.02.12 > > > I have attached the minutes from MLA design team meeting > we had on Tuesday. > > Date/Time: > ------------------------------------------------- > 2008.02.12 08:00-09:00 PST > > Attendees: > ------------------------------------------------- > Alan Johnston > Andy Hutton > Bill Mitchell > Derek McDonald > Martin Dolly > Michael Proctor > Raj Jain > Shida Schubert > > Agenda: > ------------------------------------------------- > 1. Consultation Hold > 2. State reconciliation > 3. Race-conditions > 4. Interop with normal UA > 5. Action Items > 6. Next Meeting > > Discussion: > ------------------------------------------------- > > *1. Consultation Hold/Call ********************** > > - Wants to avoid allocation of another appearance or > seizing of appearance when doing a consultation hold/call > on dialog that has appearance number assigned. Rather > want to re-use the already assigned appearance. > > - Questions: 2 calls are associated with the appearance? > >> Yes. > > - I think the requirement is to have appearance within > an appearance. > >> If the UA is capable managing appearance on its own, > it's not a problem. Don't see it impacts the draft. > > - Having the ability of a UA to change the dialog associated with > an appearance it has been assigned, would it be the requirement that > would address this? > >> No comment > > - It's a single line sharing, and it has nothing to do > with multiple appearance. > > - May be text needs to be added on how single line > sharing needs no further extension. > > - Andy will re-attempt to address the use-cases, which > will show how it affects the multiple appearances. > > *2. Race Condition ********************************** > - Debate about the INVITE Join race condition. > >> Alan will look at the case where conference > bridge is in the picture. > > - What to do if an entity doesn't support INVITE/Replaces? > >> If Replaces is not supported use 3PCC. > >> Debate about the complexity. > >> Alan expressed he wants to look at Join instead of > Replaces. > >> Debate, many disinclined to look further. > Conclusion: Will mandate far end (Carol) to support Replaces, > and tackle the race condition when using Replaces > on the list. > > *3. State Reconcilliation **************************** > > - Discussion about adding a new requirement. > Should be able to allow the appearance agent to > assign an alternate appearance if appearance requested > is not available. > - Following appearance assignment request comes to mind. > >> Give me any > >> Give me the one requested, if not available, you pick. > >> Give me the one requested or nothing. > >> Give me appearance within the range(1-5 etc). > - Seems to need more flexibility than simple range. > >> SUBSCRIBE + filter ? > - No one opposed to the requirement. > - Do we want single mechanism to support all of them? > - Many agreed. >> Need to see if it's possible. > > *4. Use of term proxy in the draft. ******************* > - Proxy in the draft is asked to more than RFC 3261, if additional > functionality is necessary, AA should be the one to take on. > - What to do about UA that supports all the primitives but doesn't > understand the appearance number. > >> No conclusion. > - Section 7 has many open issues, need to read and discuss. > > *5. Action Items ************************************** > 1) Andy will submit another use-case about consultation-hold/call > in conjunction with multiple appearance. > 2) Alan will look at the race-condition when conference bridge > is in the picture and submit comments to the list. > 3) Text needs to be added about mandating far end to support > Replaces or call take/pickup will fail > 4) Continue the discussion about the race conditions on the list. > 5) New requirement about appearance assignment needs to be > considered and added to the draft. > 6) Single solution to address all 4 cases of appearance assignment > should be contemplated. > 7) Clarification of term proxy in the draft needs to be > clarified or restated(the draft imposes more than RFC 3261). > 8) Everybody reads section 7 and comment. > 9) Alan will update the draft before next week's call. > > *6. Next Meeting ************************************** > Feb 19th, 08:00-09:00 PST. > _______________________________________________ > BLISS mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss > _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
