Subject: [Sipping] Internet draft on missed calls / msgs notification

From: "Avasarala Ranjit-A20990" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:27:43 +0800

Hi
    I want to propose an internet draft on notification for missed
calls/ messages thru XML event package. Plz go thru it and give your
comments.

Thanks
 <<draft-ranjit-missed-calls-msgs-00.txt>> 

Regards
Ranjit

_______________________________________________
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: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 10:19:34 -0500

It would be interesting to explain when and why message notifications are
not endpoint functions and under what circumstances a server is preferable.
Commercial P2P products (Skype) and P2P SIP have no servers...

What may the P2P SIP view be for these functions?

The cost of the servers may be less relevant for a service provider,
compared to the operational costs for the servers, updates, etc.. 

Thanks, Henry

  _____  

From: Avasarala Ranjit-A20990 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 1:28 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Sipping] Internet draft on missed calls / msgs notification

Hi 
    I want to propose an internet draft on notification for missed calls/
messages thru XML event package. Plz go thru it and give your comments.

Thanks 

Regards 
Ranjit

---

From: David R Oran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:32:59 -0400

On Sep 24, 2005, at 11:19 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> It would be interesting to explain when and why message  
> notifications are not endpoint functions and under what  
> circumstances a server is preferable.
I you want in integrated view of all calls and not just the ones for  
which the INVITEs reached a particular device.
For example, I have serial forking which rings my desk phone and only  
if it doesn't answer does it ring my cell phone. I would however,  
like a full view of the call log for my AoR, including those that  
never rang anywhere (were screened, went to call coverage because my  
phone was off or disconnected, were answered on one phone but I'd  
like to have the call record on another phone so I can easily  
originate a call from there, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.)
> Commercial P2P products (Skype) and P2P SIP have no servers...
Henry, I love you, but that's nonsense. Of course they do, for  
voicemail, skypeout, and likely tons of other things. As with most  
things the purist model of no servers at all is the enemy of the  
sweet-spot model which avoids gratuitous use of servers when they add  
no value, introduce scalability and security problems, and just get  
in the way.

> What may the P2P SIP view be for these functions?
Perhaps a fully-replicated distributed database among the Contacts  
for a particular AOR. Of course even if you have that you need a data  
schema, which is mostly what this draft seems to be about.
>
>
> The cost of the servers may be less relevant for a service  
> provider, compared to the operational costs for the servers,  
> updates, etc..
>
>
>
> Thanks, Henry
>
>
>
> calls/ messages thru XML event package. Plz go thru it and give  
> your comments.
>
> Thanks

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:50:13 -0500

David,

> Of course even if you have that you need a data  

Agreed. It was the 'server only' view that needs to be discussed and amended
IMHO.

>Perhaps a fully-replicated distributed database among the Contacts for a
>particular AOR.

You have answered the question how this can be done without servers, and
there is more in-depth about serverless telephony in several papers that you
may already know:

http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~library/TR-repository/reports/reports-2004/cucs
-044-04.pdf  and more at http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~kns10/publication/ 

>the purist model of no servers at all is the enemy of the  
>in the way

Please don't attribute to me things that I have not said. The issue with

>compared to the operational costs for the servers, updates, etc..

For the operational costs you can include the cost of the staff to maintain
the servers, versus a self organizing server cloud.

> but that's nonsense.

And if you have a problem with the "purist model" then you would need to
explain why most of the Internet traffic is P2P anyway, as reported in
several places, such as
http://linuxreviews.org/news/2004/11/05_p2p/ and 
http://www.cachelogic.com/research/slide1.php 
"Purists" must be knowing something on how to avoid a costly "service
infrastructure" :-)

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of David R Oran
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 2:33 PM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: [email-masked]; 'David A. Bryan'
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Internet draft on missed calls / msgs notification

---

From: Arjun Roychowdhury <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:09:38 -0400

The intent of the draft is well placed and useful. However, I wonder
if this draft makes an assumption that the network service is only
provided by one entity.

The concept of service execution in SIP was that multiple nodes could
be participatory. In the case of a 'missed call' a proxy may be just a
default forwarding device to an AS that really decides if the call is
missed. Similarly, depending on other factors, the AS itself may be
'handing off' a call to another node, say a B2B. The AS thinks that
the call is actually connected whereas the B2B knows it is not.

The question therefore arises as to who really knows that the call is
really missed and who reports. More importantly, if the notion of the
service result is shared between multiple nodes, no one node could
really report effectively.

Therefore, is the concept of 'call history' more applicable here as a
primitive that needs be specified and missed call a construct on top
of it ? I

On 9/23/05, Avasarala Ranjit-A20990 <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Sipping mailing list
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping

--
Arjun Roychowdhury

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:41:36 -0400

Arjun,

> if this draft makes an assumption that the network service is only

I think it makes the assumption that the subscription terminates on one 
entity that can provide the requested information. How that entity gets 
the information is another story. There is a little bit of text that 
hints at a mechanism. I couldn't get much out of it - it might be overly 
restrictive. In any case, I think the mechanism for gathering the 
information can be independent of the mechanism for retrieving it.

> primitive that needs be specified and missed call a construct on top

I agree that more work is needed, on a sort of framework, to determine 
how this information can be determined.

If we just view this as a "call log", that contains what information is 
known about calls, then we can perhaps dodge fully defining what 
constitutes a "missed" call. (IMO there is no single definition that 
everyone would agree on.) The log would just capture what information is 
available to it, and watchers can develop their own criteria for what 
constitutes "missed", if that is what they want to know.

	Paul