Subject: [siprec] Metadata model - Recording Session Group

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 12:29:31 +0200

Ram wrote:

"These is optional and is Used when multiple RS need to be related (e.g. recording initiated by multiple participants.) Do we need this element ? if yes What attributes it should have ?  (type/usage/reason ? )"

IS one SRC likely to be aware that another SRC (acting on behalf of a different participant) has a related RS? I am having trouble understanding how this could be used in practice.

John (as individual)

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:49:30 -0400

John,

I (tentatively) put this into the model based on discussions indicating 
the situation could arise, with a need to recognize it.

But I too have difficulty understanding the way this will be detected in 
order to establish the group membership. That's why the issue is raised. :-)

One possibility is that it isn't detected by the SRC, but rather by the 
SRS. If so, then this would be a metamodel element that *isn't* 
transmitted from SRC to SRS. In that case we might question whether we 
need to document it at all.

We need to figure this out.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 10/1/2010 6:29 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> siprec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>

---

From: "Henry Lum" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:36:26 -0700

There was a question I brought up in the Maastrict meeting about whether
we can have multiple RSes for a CS and we concluded that we only allow
one RS for a single CS. For cases where the participants in a call are
geographically separated, the suggestion is to treat them as separate
CSes and let the SRS figure the relationship between then.

I can see that the group membership implies a way to tie multiple
related CSes together to solve the problem I raised. However, since we
have declared that it is out of scope for SRC to provide the mechanism
to tie CSes together, so I don't think group membership can be
established by the SRC. I would agree with Paul that if there is no way
to transport the information to the SRS, then we should not document
this relationship in the metadata as well.

Henry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 8:49 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [siprec] Metadata model - Recording Session Group
> 
> John,
> 
> > "These is optional and is Used when multiple RS need to be related
> (e.g. recording initiated by multiple participants.) Do we need this
> element ? if yes What attributes it should have ?  (type/usage/reason
?
> )"
> >
> > IS one SRC likely to be aware that another SRC (acting on behalf of
a
> different participant) has a related RS? I am having trouble
> understanding how this could be used in practice.
> >
> > John (as individual)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files attached may contain confidential and proprietary information of Alcatel-Lucent and/or its affiliated entities. Access by the intended recipient only is authorized. Any liability arising from any party acting, or refraining from acting, on any information contained in this e-mail is hereby excluded. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, destroy the original transmission and its attachments and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Copyright in this e-mail and any attachments belongs to Alcatel-Lucent and/or its affiliated entities.

---

From: Leon Portman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:37:48 +0200

I agree with Henry

Leon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henry Lum
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 4:36 PM
To: Paul Kyzivat; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [siprec] Metadata model - Recording Session Group

Henry

?
a

---

From: "Parthasarathi R (partr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 21:26:39 +0530

+1

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Leon Portman
Sent: Mon 10/4/2010 9:07 PM
To: Henry Lum; Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [siprec] Metadata model - Recording Session Group

I agree with Henry

Leon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henry Lum
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 4:36 PM
To: Paul Kyzivat; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [siprec] Metadata model - Recording Session Group

Henry

?
a