Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Requirements Comment

From: "Steve Buko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:16:38 -0700

I have a general issue regarding our current set of requirements and
thought it might be a good idea to get a thread going on this prior to
our Thursday meeting.

draft-even-media-server-req-02.txt
<http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl/draft-even-media-server-re
q-02.txt>  states the following

"10.  The MS shall supply the media addresses (RTP transport address) to
be used to the AS"

draft-dolly-xcon-mediacntrlframe-03.txt
<http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl/draft-dolly-xcon-mediacntr
lframe-03.txt>  states the following

"REQ-MCP-11 - SIP/SDP SHALL be used to establish and modify RTP
connections to a Media Server"

In my view, we have two main problems to solve.

1)     define a media control framework that will be used to transmit a
given media control protocol.

2)    define a media control protocol used to control a media server.

I agree that the media control framework should use SIP/SDP to specify
the protocol / transport used to negotiation the TCP port and
transmit/receive the media control protocol.  

However, I would offer that the media control protocol defined by this
group should be ..

1)     call control signaling agnostic

2)    media transport agnostic

For this requirement ...

draft-even-media-server-req-02.txt
<http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl/draft-even-media-server-re
q-02.txt>  states the following

"10.  The MS shall supply the media addresses (RTP transport address) to
be used to the AS"

I don't understand why the AS would need the media addresses and would
like to think that the AS would like to control a media server that may
not be using RTP in all scenarios.

For this requirement ...

draft-dolly-xcon-mediacntrlframe-03.txt
<http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl/draft-dolly-xcon-mediacntr
lframe-03.txt>  states the following

"REQ-MCP-11 - SIP/SDP SHALL be used to establish and modify RTP
connections to a Media Server"

I agree that SIP/SDP should be used to establish/negotiate the TCP
port/address used for media control transport, however I don't think RTP
comes into play from a media control framework perspective.  

My high level comment is that we should not limit the use of our media
control protocol to media servers that only support SIP and RTP.

Steve Buko

_______________________________________________
MEDIACTRL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl

---

From: "Even, Roni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:32:56 +0200

About requirement 10 in draft-even-media-server-req-02. The requirement
is that the AS will be able to tell its clients where to send the media
to. In the case of IP that means that it will not manage the transport
addresses on the media server. It needs some way to get the transport
address to be used on the protocol between the AS and its clients

I assume that if the media server also has circuit switch connections
(PSTN / ISDN) this may be a phone number. My view is that the phone
numbers will be managed by the AS and it will not need to get them from
the MS. 

As for req-mcp-11, if it addresses the connection from MS to the client,
I think that it already discuss a solution. If it is between the AS and
MS, it may be either in the SIP connection or it can be in the control
protocol.

Roni

________________________________

From: Steve Buko [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:17 PM
To: Eric Burger; [email-masked]
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Requirements Comment

 

 

For this requirement ...

For this requirement ...

 

 

Steve Buko

---

From: Lorenzo Miniero <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:45:27 +0100

Hi Steve,

[cut]

> However, I would offer that the media control protocol defined by this group
should be ..
> 2)    media transport agnostic

Just my two cents about this.
While I agree about the media transport agnostic, I think the same is only
half-agreeable when talking about the CSP, since when coming to MS operations
some kind of correlation is needed between call sessions routed from the AS to
the MS and call legs as handled by the MS.

Regards,
Lorenzo

-- 
Lorenzo Miniero, Junior Researcher
Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica
Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II"
Via Claudio 21 -- 80125 Napoli (Italy)
Phone: +390817683821 - Fax: +390817683816
Email: [email-masked]

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

---

From: "Steve Buko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:40:29 -0700

Roni,

You comments below are really dealing with the call control signaling
and media session establishment.  I would think that this would be out
of the scope of this workgroup.  

Steve Buko 

From: Even, Roni [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:33 PM
To: Steve Buko; Eric Burger; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [MEDIACTRL] Requirements Comment

Roni

 

 

 

For this requirement ...

For this requirement ...

 

 

Steve Buko

---

From: "Steve Buko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:45:16 -0700

I agree.  This is the tricky part in either case and must be defined.  

When a Media Control Protocol "body" is sent to the MS, it must have a way to identify the call leg that the media operations must be applied to.  I view this as part of the Media Control Protocol definition.

The SIP session used to establish the media control framework path to the MS may be singular, and used to manage multiple call legs.

Steve Buko 

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Lorenzo Miniero [mailto:[email-masked]]
|Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:45 PM
|To: Steve Buko
|Cc: Eric Burger; [email-masked]
|Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] Requirements Comment
|
|Hi Steve,
|
|[cut]
|
|> However, I would offer that the media control protocol defined by this
|group
|should be ..
|>
|> 1)     call control signaling agnostic
|>
|> 2)    media transport agnostic
|>
|
|
|Just my two cents about this.
|While I agree about the media transport agnostic, I think the same is
|only
|half-agreeable when talking about the CSP, since when coming to MS
|operations
|some kind of correlation is needed between call sessions routed from the
|AS to
|the MS and call legs as handled by the MS.
|
|Regards,
|Lorenzo
|
|--
|Lorenzo Miniero, Junior Researcher
|Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica
|Universit degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II"
|Via Claudio 21 -- 80125 Napoli (Italy)
|Phone: +390817683821 - Fax: +390817683816
|Email: [email-masked]
|
|
|
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________
MEDIACTRL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl