Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Endpoint Signaling

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:46:53 -0500

As I was revising the charter, I stumbled upon something related to Roni's
and Lorenzo's discussion on BFCP that relates directly to Dave Oran's
concern.  Namely,

  Shall mediactrl entertain signaling directly between the
  user endpoint and the media server?

I would offer the answer is "no."  That restriction means that if we receive
floor control commands, they will come from the application server.
Likewise, while the media server will most likely do VCR controls (or
trick-play controls, i.e., FF, REW, Pause), they will not be directly from
the end-user.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent a user endpoint from looking like an
application server, nor is there anything to prevent us from deciding that
if we do floor control, it will look like BFCP.  However, I would like to
clarify that we will NOT be working on a user-end-point to media server
protocol in mediactrl.

The language I have put into the most recent draft charter reads as follows:

   The expected deployment architecture for a media server
   in the context of mediactrl is as a server to application
   servers.  It is not expected that end user endpoints will
   have a direct signaling relationship to the media server.

Any dissent?  Speak now before I update the charter.

_______________________________________________
MEDIACTRL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl

diactrl.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mediactrl>
List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: [email-masked]

As I was revising the charter, I stumbled upon something related to Roni's
and Lorenzo's discussion on BFCP that relates directly to Dave Oran's
concern.  Namely,

  Shall mediactrl entertain signaling directly between the
  user endpoint and the media server?

I would offer the answer is "no."  That restriction means that if we receive
floor control commands, they will come from the application server.
Likewise, while the media server will most likely do VCR controls (or
trick-play controls, i.e., FF, REW, Pause), they will not be directly from
the end-user.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent a user endpoint from looking like an
application server, nor is there anything to prevent us from deciding that
if we do floor control, it will look like BFCP.  However, I would like to
clarify that we will NOT be working on a user-end-point to media server
protocol in mediactrl.

The language I have put into the most recent draft charter reads as follows:

   The expected deployment architecture for a media server
   in the context of mediactrl is as a server to application
   servers.  It is not expected that end user endpoints will
   have a direct signaling relationship to the media server.

Any dissent?  Speak now before I update the charter.

_______________________________________________
MEDIACTRL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl

---

From: "Osher Hmelnizky" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:39:34 +0200

Hi all, on the one hand it seems to be a right solution (I mean the
restriction of the direct connection between the Media server and the
end user), but in the wireless applications where the Real time
considerations have place Application server and additional IMS elements
may cause unacceptable delays. 
See SIP-RTSP development, which should give solution for such problems.

For your consideration

Best regards

Osher

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Burger [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:47 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Endpoint Signaling

As I was revising the charter, I stumbled upon something related to
Roni's
and Lorenzo's discussion on BFCP that relates directly to Dave Oran's
concern.  Namely,

I would offer the answer is "no."  That restriction means that if we
receive
floor control commands, they will come from the application server.
Likewise, while the media server will most likely do VCR controls (or
trick-play controls, i.e., FF, REW, Pause), they will not be directly
from
the end-user.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent a user endpoint from looking like
an
application server, nor is there anything to prevent us from deciding
that
if we do floor control, it will look like BFCP.  However, I would like
to
clarify that we will NOT be working on a user-end-point to media server
protocol in mediactrl.

The language I have put into the most recent draft charter reads as
follows: