Subject: [Sipping] Simple Application Configuration: draft-veikkolainen-sipping-app-config-00.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:37:15 +0300

Hi all,
We have submitted a new draft on application configuration. From the
abstract:

   For applications requiring configuration of various settings, it is
   desirable that the end user needs to enter as little configuration
   information as possible.  Especially applications running in devices
   with limited user interface, such as mobile phones, Personal Digital
   Assistants (PDAs), and terminal adaptors, would benefit from an
   automated configuration process.  This document defines a simple
   application configuration mechanism using the Domain Name System
   (DNS) and HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP).

Until it appears in the I-D repository, you can get it from 
http://validate.openlaboratory.net/drafts/draft-veikkolainen-sipping-app
-config-00.txt.

Comments are very welcome!

Regards,
Simo 

_______________________________________________
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: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:10:50 +0300

Hi Simo and Markus,

I have read your draft and it seems to be easier to implement that the
sip-config-framework, also I like the fact that it generalizes to
non-SIP systems.

However another possibility to provide application configuration
information to a UA could be to define a new ***application profile***
in addition to existing profiles as defined in “A Framework for Session
Initiation Protocol User Agent Profile Delivery”. 
I think OMA is trying to do something similar, so it could be useful
standardize an application profile in IETF as well.
Moreover I agree with Schulzrinne that the draft -12 is still very
tedious and difficult to read.

Anyway, I have also a comment more specific to your draft.
The mechanism you define in the draft doesn't relay on the sip event  
notification. Even if your mechanism is easier to implement, because you
don't need to go throw the three step process (SUBSCRIBE,NOTIFICATION
and then HTTP), it could be inefficient in the updating, perhaps there
isn't any update at the polling period time, but then there is one as
soon as after the polling period time.
So maybe it could be useful using something like RSS, instead of relying
on a fixed polling period. What do you think about?

regards
Sal

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:19:37 +0300

Hi Sal,
Thanks for your comments; see below. 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Salvatore Loreto [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 16.07.2007 12:11
>To: Veikkolainen Simo (NSN - FI/Espoo)
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Sipping] Simple 
>ApplicationConfiguration:draft-veikkolainen-sipping-app-config-00.txt
>
>Hi Simo and Markus,
>
>I have read your draft and it seems to be easier to implement 
>that the sip-config-framework, also I like the fact that it 
>generalizes to non-SIP systems.
>
>However another possibility to provide application 
>configuration information to a UA could be to define a new 
>***application profile*** in addition to existing profiles as 
>defined in "A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol User 
>Agent Profile Delivery". 
>I think OMA is trying to do something similar, so it could be 
>useful standardize an application profile in IETF as well.
>Moreover I agree with Schulzrinne that the draft -12 is still 
>very tedious and difficult to read.

I think at some point in time there was an "application profile" defined
in the SIP UA Config Framework, however it got removed later. In any
case, what we are aiming at is a simple HTTP GET based mechanism for
getting the configuration data instead of extending the SIP UA
Configuration Framework.

>The mechanism you define in the draft doesn't relay on the sip 
>event notification. Even if your mechanism is easier to 
>implement, because you don't need to go throw the three step 
>process (SUBSCRIBE,NOTIFICATION and then HTTP), it could be 
>inefficient in the updating, perhaps there isn't any update at 
>the polling period time, but then there is one as soon as 
>after the polling period time.
>So maybe it could be useful using something like RSS, instead 
>of relying on a fixed polling period. What do you think about?
>

Even in RSS the reader (client) checks - or polls - the feeds for new
content. I don't see using RSS would make things any different. 

Regards,
Simo

>> 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: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:36:43 +0300

hi Simo,

yes you are right, in the older version of the Config Framework there
was an "application profile" it was removed in order to try to speed up
the work with the draft.
In any case I think should be a good idea start a different draft that
reintroduce it.

Anyway even if I'd like have a pure sip mechanism, in my opinion your
HTTP GET based mechanism for getting configuration it is pretty good.
My concern is only about the confusion that can generate having
different mechanism for the same aim.

regards
Sal