Dear sanjsinh
I don't know the other way to collect "Hook-Flash" event along on-going
dialogue.
What is the suggested 'non-INFO way' ?
THX
JK
-----원본 메시지-----
보낸 사람: "Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
보낸 날짜: 2007-12-07 오후 1:54:17
받는 사람: "황진경[연구전문그룹]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Hadriel Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
참조: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
제목: RE: [Sip] INFO use-cases
These 3 use cases below seem misuse of INFO as there are established mechanism
of doing these using non-INFO way.
From: 황진경[연구전문그룹] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:12 PM
To: Hadriel Kaplan
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO use-cases
Dear Hadriel Kaplan and folks
(in our case)
Midcall INFO is used in
1) Three-way calling: to add another party to existing call
2) Call waiting: to change dialogue between two ongoing calls
3) Centrex services: call transfer, etc.
THX
JK Hwang
KT
-----원본 메시지-----
보낸 사람: "Hadriel Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
보낸 날짜: 2007-12-07 오전 10:48:19
받는 사람: "황진경[연구전문그룹]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
참조: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
제목: RE: [Sip] INFO use-cases
Hi JK,
I actually saw that draft but did not include it because I thought it was
essentially another DTMF-style event type, and would be subsumed into it, but
you're right I should have included that use-case. Sorry!
-hadriel
________________________________________
From: 황진경[연구전문그룹] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 8:33 PM
To: Hadriel Kaplan; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO use-cases
Dear folks,
How about the Midcall INFO ?
When 'Hook-Flash' from the SIP or POTS phone during a dialogue, we (KT) use
INFO method from the CSCF/MGCF to AS.
I submitted a draft I-D two years ago but it was not accepted,
But we still use the case.
Can it be another Use-Case ?
JK Hwang
KT
-----원본 메시지-----
보낸 사람: "Hadriel Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
보낸 날짜: 2007-12-07 오전 8:38:36
받는 사람: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
참조:
제목: [Sip] INFO use-cases
Howdy,
Jonathan asked for use-cases for what types of things would need an in-dialog
SIP message for user-user communication, vs. should be done either out of
dialog or in the media plane. If the only use-case is DTMF, then we could just
document the DTMF negotiation/use only and not have to create a general
info-events framework. That seems a very reasonable argument to me. I also
don't want to do work for no use.
There is a counter-argument that there are proprietary uses of INFO in the
wild, and that a framework for negotiation at least removes the manual
configuration of vendor-specific profiles, which is a problem of interop today
- even if the IETF should not bless/document the specific use cases themselves.
But that would make the draft a very different one than it currently is as
well, and I will ask that in a separate email thread.
The chairs have asked for 3 use cases, and I assume they mean 3 NEW use cases
(we already have 3 RFCs which use INFO, as well as DTMF). I am not sure if
they mean potential future use-cases, or current use-cases (i.e., already
implemented). Can I get a clarification on that?
So anyway, taking the shot-gun approach, here's a first go at some use-cases,
and my personal take on whether they should be in INFO vs. SUB/NOT vs.
media-plane, FWIW.
[apologize for formatting ugliness]
/***************
* Already standardized use-cases:
***************/
1) SIP-T/ISUP/QSIG/PSTN
-Documented in RFC 3372 and RFC 4497.
2) ECMA TR/87 uaCSTA
-Uses INFO to send ECMA-323 XML for monitoring and controlling phones
from a PC.
3) Sending media server control commands.
-Documented in RFC4722 MSCML.
/****************
* Use-cases that I think are potentially/possibly valid for INFO:
****************/
1) Sending a vcard asynchronously. Alice calls Bob, Alice says "can you send
me John's vcard?", Bob clicks something and voila it's sent.
-Alternatives: send a re-Invite or Update with a Call-Info, with either
a URL reference, data URI, or MIME and CID URL.
-Counter-argument: IMO this type of data really belongs in MIME for a
number of reasons, including length is less restricted for mime attachments;
one AD has said the Data URL may be deprecated. And sending a re-Invite for
this purpose seems odd.
-Also, the Call-Info header is really about the caller or callee, and
thus Bob shouldn't be sending me John's vcard info in it technically. That may
sound like a nit, but UA's may well store the call-info vcards into their
address-books automatically and so tie it to the wrong user/call.
-Pros of using INFO: it's explicit what you're doing when you send the
vcard, and you can send it knowing the other end can accept it, and you can
send it based on user input.
2) Sending a user-icon jpeg/bitmap/gif. Alice calls Bob, Bob has an icon that
represents himself, sends it when he picks up the phone.
-Alternatives: send a 200ok, re-Invite, or Update with call-info, which
explicitly has a type for icon.
-Counter-argument: same as for vcard, plus with call-info there is no
way to know which picture format the far-end supports a priori. With a
supported-package negotiation one could know.
3) Sending a vcalendar-type invitation. Alice calls Bob, Bob says "hey let's
have a con call at time X", clicks and voila his phone sends a vcalendar..
-Whether the vcalendar is related to the session or not and thus
whether it should be sent in an in-dialog request or not is certainly
debatable. Message method can already be used for this anyway.
4) Sending an HTTP URL. Alice calls Bob, a sales guy; Alice asks for more info
or a datasheet and Bob sends a URL for Alice to open with her web-browser.
-One could also argue this is just making SIP the new SMTP, or this
should be sent using MESSAGE (which really is the new SMTP).
5) Sending a session traceroute. Alice calls Bob, Bob answers, Alice does a
sip-traceroute to figure out the path to Bob, by sending Info with an
incrementing max-forwards type header starting at 0 (but not really
max-forwards), with a sip-frag type response body or some such.
-It's debatable if certain types of B2BUA's (ie, SBCs) would ever allow
this type of thing to happen, due to security concerns, but I think they may do
it at domain boundary hops. I think this is a reasonable use for INFO though,
maybe.
6) Sending geo-location information after call establishment. Alice calls Bob,
a hotel receptionist. Alice asks for directions to hotel, clicks button and
sends him location info of her phone (or Bob clicks button and sends her his
location).
-The location conveyance draft specifically calls out INFO as
acceptable for geo-loc info. Whether this is a real use-case is debatable, and
obviously it could be done with a sub/not.
7) Sending softkey-labels (not digit-match maps, but rather softkey button
labels). Alice calls her vmail server. Vmail server sends softkey-labels for
the menu items available in the response, Alice presses softkeys and sends them
in INFO.
-This could (and maybe should) be done with sub/not, a la KPML, where
the vmail server sends the softkey labels in the Subscribe, UA sends buttons
pressed in Notifies. But this is similar to the DTMF use case so may well have
the same benefit of lower overhead since buttons are rarely pressed.
8) Sending a screen-pop-up message, e.g., "Do you want to continue with this
session?"
-There is a patent for doing screen pop-ups using INFO. I guess
Alert-Info could be used for this, but it's not clear it should?
/*****************
* Use-cases which have been proposed by others or even implemented,
* which are dubious for INFO (IMHO):
*****************/
1) Sending RTP/RTCP statistics during call.
-There is an implementation of this, and the rationale is the signaling
plane box that wants this info is not actually the media plane box that gets
RTCP. Again this could (and IMO should) be done with sub/not, so it can get
stats after the call is over, and since it will probably want periodic reports
the overhead of the Subscribe should be dwarfed by the number of Notifies.
2) Sending access-location information after call establishment.
-There is a P-Access-Network-Info header, and some have proposed to
send an update for it as a phone roams access points or cells. But I think
this is an odd thing to do inside an Invite session, vs. in a sub/not or
Register (and besides half the time the network inserts this header, not the
UA).
3) Sending media-control indications (ie, remote-control "play/pause/etc.")
-This is done today by at least one vendor, but is debatable if it's
the right model. The argument is it's like SDP re-Invite for hold, except at a
media content layer above RTP, so not done in RTCP nor SDP.
4) Sending video fast update command
-This is an informational draft, which documents what has been
implemented, but states it should really be done in the media plane.
5) Sending peripheral control commands (ie, USB commands)
-There is actually a patent on this, amazingly. Someone thinks it
makes sense to create a SIP session to your laptop, or vice-versa, and then
send USB commands inside MIME in INFO messages. Methinks this should be
media-plane, if anything.
6) Sending charging information for a call (i.e., minutes remaining or cost so
far).
-There was a proposal to use this for Advice of Charge information in
TISPAN. IMO it should be a sub/not though, as they want this to survive the
Invite session.
-hadriel_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
