Subject: Re: [Sipping] proposed enhancement to dialog package

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 04:08:22 -0400

Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> 
> As this relates to Rohan's proposal, I think what I have described as 
> attending to media is similar to what Rohan is calling participation. 
> The primary difference seems to be that Rohan is applying this property 
> to the dialog as a whole rather than to a media stream.
> 
> It is convenient to have this as a property of the dialog. The question 
> is whether the typical UA knows this. For UAs that support only a single 
> medium the distinction is irrelevant. There isn't nearly as much 
> experience with multimedia UAs, and I suspect there hasn't been time for 
> management of such devices to reach defacto standardization.

I dont think this is a property of the dialog at all. Keith commented 
on this previously within this thread, and I agree. This notion of 
"participation" is a very high level application issue, and it can 
manifest itself in SIP-terms in many ways - suspended media streams, 
media on hold, etc. For some applications, the notion of participation 
may, in fact, be applicable to a media stream at a time, and for 
others, its all of them.

There are certainly other "states" of a telephony-like application 
residing on SIP. "Muted" has also been discussed in this thread. 
Generally, muted is a purely local operation, and doesnt manifest 
itself within SIP signaling in any way.

As such, I dont think the dialog package is the right place for this 
information. Its much closer to presence, in fact. Indeed, Jon and I 
recently submitted an I-D that proposed a bunch of PIDF extensions to 
reflect status of phones, including application-level type of state:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-peterson-simple-pidf-phone-00.txt

My gut feeling is that this might be a more appropriate place for 
these states.

-Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:50:18 -0700

On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 01:08 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

>> The primary difference seems to be that Rohan is applying this  
>> property to the dialog as a whole rather than to a media stream.
>> It is convenient to have this as a property of the dialog. The  
>> question is whether the typical UA knows this. For UAs that support  
>> only a single medium the distinction is irrelevant. There isn't  
>> nearly as much experience with multimedia UAs, and I suspect there  
>> hasn't been time for management of such devices to reach defacto  
>> standardization.
>

no, the notion of participation is not per-stream. there is no  
precedent for participation to be a stream thing.  There may be  
additional *attributes* of your participation which are per-stream, but  
the participation itself is not per-stream.

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-peterson-simple- 

i don't buy it.

thanks,
-rohan

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:14:19 -0400

>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-peterson-simple- 

Its hard to respond to something like that without some kind of 
substantiation. Can you elaborate on why you don't buy it?

-Jonathan R.