Subject: [Insipid] 3.X Identification of devices taking part in the same multipoint Conference: evaluation

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:21:06 -0500

INSIPID

Here is the set of use-cases and requirements discussed in Vancouver. 
We are to come to consensus on each of these (or not), and if we 
agree the use-case or requirement should be in the document, we need 
to determine acceptable wording for each. The Subject: line will 
contain the specific topic (which use-case or requirement) for this 
thread. PLEASE do not cross contaminate the threads. Any new topic 
SHOULD have its own Subject line. The chairs will monitor and call 
for consensus on each use-case and requirement (and wording of each).

Please make constructive suggestions regarding each you care about.

The Section numbers will be reordered once consensus has been reached 
on all items we're covering, so don't worry about that part.

3.X Identification of devices taking part in the same multipoint Conference:

SIP messaging can easily be multipoint in nature, specifically with 
several UAs communicating with a multipoint control unit (MCU) as 
part of a conference. The ability to distinguish all participants in 
single focus based multipoint conference to be identified as in the 
same communications session with all the other participants (i.e., in 
a single star configuration), verses in another conference session.

Derived Requirements:

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:37:13 -0500

At 06:21 PM 8/27/2012, James Polk wrote:
>INSIPID
>
>Here is the set of use-cases and requirements discussed in 
>Vancouver. We are to come to consensus on each of these (or not), 
>and if we agree the use-case or requirement should be in the 
>document, we need to determine acceptable wording for each. The 
>Subject: line will contain the specific topic (which use-case or 
>requirement) for this thread. PLEASE do not cross contaminate the 
>threads. Any new topic SHOULD have its own Subject line. The chairs 
>will monitor and call for consensus on each use-case and requirement 
>(and wording of each).
>
>The Section numbers will be reordered once consensus has been 
>reached on all items we're covering, so don't worry about that part.
>
>
>same communications session with all the other participants (i.e., 
>in a single star configuration), verses in another conference session.

Within the WG session, it was discussed by several that this 
use-case, and the subsequent requirement should not remain a goal of 
this WG. I vehemently disagree with this view. It was stated several 
times that no solution can tackle this problem-space, yet I suggest 
that the existing proposed solution does just that for a single 
bridge (i.e., single focus conference), which is the most often 
use-case. This might not matter to SBCs (or their manufacturers) but 
it does to B2BUAs (and their manufacturers).

I know, them's fightin` words, but that doesn't make them wrong.

James
(a B2BUA and SBC manufacturer)

>Derived Requirements:
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>insipid mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid