Subject: Re: [siprec] #2: Clarify requirements concerning notifications to recorded parties

From: "siprec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 15:24:37 -0000

#2: Clarify requirements concerning notifications to recorded parties
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
 Reporter:  john.elwell@…                       |       Owner:  krehor@…        
     Type:  enhancement                         |      Status:  new             
 Priority:  major                               |   Milestone:  milestone1      
Component:  Requirements                        |     Version:                  
 Severity:  Candidate WG Document               |    Keywords:                  
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------

Comment(by john.elwell@…):

 There has been discussion about continuous indications via media during
 the period in which recording is taking place (e.g., a repeated short beep
 in audio, a flashing icon or message on video, a repeated phrase in real-
 time text). This might be best achieved by the UA rendering whatever is
 appropriate at the user interface, in the language of the user. A simple
 indication in signalling that recording is starting or stopped would be
 sufficient for UAs to do this. Of course, UAs that don't support this
 feature would ignore the indication, in which case deployments would need
 to fall back to what is often done at present (in some countries at
 least): an announcement at the start of the call that the call "may" be
 recorded. SIP mechanisms already exist to bring a media server into a call
 to play an announcement, and I don't think SIPREC needs to address this
 aspect. I think SIPREC can limit itself to a simple signalling indication,
 for use by UAs that understand it.

 John (as individual)

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/siprec/trac/ticket/2#comment:2>
siprec <http://tools.ietf.org/siprec/>

---

From: "siprec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 08:28:59 -0000

Comment(by deepanshu@…):

 The current requirement states "The mechanism *MUST provide* an indication
 to the end users......". Is it implying that this is a mandatory
 *requirement to do* for all the implementations? Or, its a mandatory
 requirement on SIPREC to provide a mechanism for? I guess its the later,
 isn't?

 Regards
 Deepanshu

 Replying to [ticket:2 john.elwell@…]:
 > The issue is being discussed in the thread beginning:
 > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/siprec/current/msg00028.html
 > and concerns REQ24 in the current (individual) draft. Clarification
 must, however, remain within the terms of the WG charter, which requires
 mechanisms to alert users that the session is being recorded

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/siprec/trac/ticket/2#comment:3>
siprec <http://tools.ietf.org/siprec/>

---

From: "siprec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 09:05:34 -0000

In my opinion, mandatory for SIPREC to provide a mechanism for. So it
 should be worded along the lines of "The mechanism MUST provide a means of
 indicating..."

 John (as individual)

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/siprec/trac/ticket/2#comment:4>
siprec <http://tools.ietf.org/siprec/>

---

From: Deepanshu Gautam <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 17:15:04 +0800

Exactly...thats what I had in mind. That rewording would be clear and also
inline with most of the other requirements in the draft.

Regards
Deepanshu

-----Original Message-----
From: siprec issue tracker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 2010年5月19日 17:06
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [siprec] #2: Clarify requirements concerning notifications to
recorded parties

#2: Clarify requirements concerning notifications to recorded parties
------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
------------------------------------------------+----
 Reporter:  john.elwell@…                       |       Owner:  krehor@…

------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
------------------------------------------------+----

 John (as individual)

---

From: "siprec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 09:16:50 -0000

Comment(by deepanshu@…):

 Regards
 Deepanshu

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/siprec/trac/ticket/2#comment:5>
siprec <http://tools.ietf.org/siprec/>