Chuck,
The new version of the draft will be available Monday. Here is the
older version of the draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-bliss-mla-req
The updated draft will include text from:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-anil-sipping-bla-04
Thanks,
Alan
Chaney, Charles (SNL US) wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
