Subject: Re: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted

From: "Parthasarathi R (partr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 14:54:09 +0530

Ken and all,
 
During the last interim meeting, it was decided to put the "forced
deletion" attribute in the appdata of Metadata model instead of
including in the model. Cancel and discard recording from SRC is
considered as policy mechanism passing to SRS. If so, the following
requirements has to be removed from SIPREC requirement:
 
   o REQ-015: The mechanism MUST support a means to cancel and discard
   the recording and associated metadata for a CS.

   o REQ-016: The mechanism MUST support a means to cancel and discard
   the recording but not the associated metadata for a CS.

Please let me know your opinion on the same.
 
Thanks
Partha
________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Ken Rehor (krehor)
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 11:39 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted

-          ietf-siprec-req-06 posted
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-siprec-req-06.txt

-          tracker item #61 closed

-          Draft and change log attached

Happy New Year!

Ken

For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

---

From: Leon Portman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 14:04:10 +0200

Partha, Hi

I am not sure about removing. It is requirement level document and how to implement it either via policy and metadata indication it is more protocol level decision.
>From my point of view it is also two separate flows: indicating retention parameters or immediate stop of the recording.

For example, SRC for some reason wants to cancel recording, the best way will be to send BYE with specific error code and not metadata update event.

Regards

Leon

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Parthasarathi R (partr)
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 11:24 AM
To: Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted

Ken and all,

During the last interim meeting, it was decided to put the "forced deletion" attribute in the appdata of Metadata model instead of including in the model. Cancel and discard recording from SRC is considered as policy mechanism passing to SRS. If so, the following requirements has to be removed from SIPREC requirement:

Thanks
Partha
________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ken Rehor (krehor)
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 11:39 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted

-          ietf-siprec-req-06 posted    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-siprec-req-06.txt

Happy New Year!

Ken

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 11:00:54 -0500

ISTM there are two parts to this:

- a mechanism for the SRC to indicate its desire to stop/cancel
   the recording and discard the media and/or metadata.

- a policy at the SRS whether to honor such a request.

The requirements aren't phrased that way. If they were, would it satisfy 
everybody?

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 1/3/2011 7:04 AM, Leon Portman wrote:
> Partha, Hi
>
> I am not sure about removing. It is requirement level document and how
> to implement it either via policy and metadata indication it is more
> protocol level decision.
>
>  From my point of view it is also two separate flows: indicating
> retention parameters or immediate stop of the recording.
>
> For example, SRC for some reason wants to cancel recording, the best way
> will be to send BYE with specific error code and not metadata update event.
>
> Regards
>
> Leon
>
> *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On
> Behalf Of *Parthasarathi R (partr)
> *Sent:* Monday, January 03, 2011 11:24 AM
> *To:* Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted
>
> Ken and all,
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On
> Behalf Of *Ken Rehor (krehor)
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 01, 2011 11:39 AM
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted
>
> -ietf-siprec-req-06 posted
> -tracker item #61 closed
> -Draft and change log attached
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Ken
>
> _______________________________________________
> siprec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:23:44 +0100

Notwithstanding this comment from Partha, I have started WGLC on the document. Please treat this as a WGLC comment.

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Parthasarathi R (partr)
> Sent: 03 January 2011 09:24
> During the last interim meeting, it was decided to put the 
> "forced deletion" attribute in the appdata of Metadata model 
> instead of including in the model. Cancel and discard 
> recording from SRC is considered as policy mechanism passing 
> to SRS. If so, the following requirements has to be removed 
> from SIPREC requirement:
>  
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ken Rehor (krehor)

---

From: "Parthasarathi R (partr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:50:44 +0530

Leon,
 
Please read inline.
 
Thanks
Partha

From: Leon Portman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Mon 1/3/2011 5:34 PM
To: Parthasarathi R (partr); Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted

Partha, Hi

I am not sure about removing. It is requirement level document and how to implement it either via policy 

<Partha> In case of policy, there is no need of configuration </Partha>

and metadata indication it is more protocol level decision.

<Partha> As per the last meeting, the information is not passed in metadata model. If required, we need to revisit the metadata model parameters </Partha>

>From my point of view it is also two separate flows: indicating retention parameters or immediate stop of the recording.

<Partha> The requirement wordings does not look like stop of the recording. The intention is to cancel and discard the existing recording of specific RS </Partha>

<Partha> I agree that different way to achieve it in SIPREC solution. Metadata model composes of all recording related signaling information passed between between SRS and SRC. As part of SIPREC solution, We may decide to use error code in BYE to cancel and discard recording but we have to represent it in the metadata model. Please let me know your opinion here. </Partha>

Regards

Leon

Ken and all,

Thanks

Partha

Happy New Year!

Ken

---

From: Deepanshu Gautam <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:19:54 +0800

I think the original intention for these requirements was indeed the stop of
recording and/or discard any metadata already submitted. The word 'cancel'
*is* implying a stop-of-recording. You don't cancel existing recording, you
delete existing/discard recording. I think the wording is fine.

We can add something related with "- a policy at the SRS whether to honor
such a request." If we really need that at requirement level

Regards

Deepanshu Gautam

T: +86 25 5260008 M: +86 135 85147627

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Parthasarathi R (partr)
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 9:21 AM
To: Leon Portman; Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted

Leon,

Please read inline.

Thanks

Partha

  _____  

Partha, Hi

I am not sure about removing. It is requirement level document and how to
implement it either via policy 

<Partha> As per the last meeting, the information is not passed in metadata
model. If required, we need to revisit the metadata model parameters
</Partha>

>From my point of view it is also two separate flows: indicating retention
parameters or immediate stop of the recording.

<Partha> The requirement wordings does not look like stop of the recording.
The intention is to cancel and discard the existing recording of specific RS
</Partha>

<Partha> I agree that different way to achieve it in SIPREC solution.
Metadata model composes of all recording related signaling information
passed between between SRS and SRC. As part of SIPREC solution, We may
decide to use error code in BYE to cancel and discard recording but we have
to represent it in the metadata model. Please let me know your opinion here.
</Partha>

Regards

Leon

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Parthasarathi R (partr)
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 11:24 AM
To: Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted

Ken and all,

During the last interim meeting, it was decided to put the "forced deletion"
attribute in the appdata of Metadata model instead of including in the
model. Cancel and discard recording from SRC is considered as policy
mechanism passing to SRS. If so, the following requirements has to be
removed from SIPREC requirement:

Thanks

Partha

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Ken Rehor (krehor)
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 11:39 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted

Happy New Year!

Ken

---

From: "Parthasarathi R (partr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:26:52 +0530

Incase everyone feels that REQ-15 and REQ-16 requirements are required,
I'm fine. I'm worried from the metadata model as we are planning to
remove "forced deletion" attribute in CS. ISTM, metadata model is
inconsistent w.r.t requirement. 
 
IMO, we need to add the "forced deletion" attribute in CS of metadata
model to meet REQ-15 and REQ-16 with attribute values as
 
1) Complete
2) Media deletion only
 
The solution document will provide the realization (like BYE with extra
SIP header) for this attribute. Please let me know your opinion on the
same.
 
Thanks
Partha

From: Deepanshu Gautam [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 7:50 AM
To: Parthasarathi R (partr); 'Leon Portman'; Ken Rehor (krehor);
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted

I think the original intention for these requirements was indeed the
stop of recording and/or discard any metadata already submitted. The
word 'cancel' *is* implying a stop-of-recording. You don't cancel
existing recording, you delete existing/discard recording. I think the
wording is fine.

We can add something related with "- a policy at the SRS whether to
honor such a request." If we really need that at requirement level

 < Regards

Deepanshu Gautam

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Parthasarathi R (partr)
Sent: Tuesday, Jan To: Leon Portman; Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted

Leon,

Please read inline.

Thanks

Partha

Partha, Hi

I am not sure about removing. It is requirement level document and how
to implement it either via policy 

<Partha> As per the last meeting, the information is not passed in
metadata model. If required, we need to revisit the metada Partha>

<Partha> The requirement wordings does not look like stop of the
recording. The intention is to cancel and discard the existing recording
of specific RS </Partha>

For example, SRC for some reason wants to cancel recording, the best way
will be to send BYE with specific error code and not metadata update
event.

<Partha> I agree that different way to achieve it in SIPREC solution.
Metadata model composes of all recording related sig between between SRS
and SRC. As part of SIPREC solution, We may decide to use error code in
BYE to cancel and discard recording but we have to represent it in the
metadata model. Please let me know your opinion here. </Partha>

Regards

Leon

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Parthasarathi R (partr)
Sent: Monday, January To: Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted

Ken and all,

   o REQ-015: The mechanism MUST support a means to bsp;  the recording
and associated metadata for a CS.

Thanks

Partha

Happy New Year!

Ken

---

From: Leon Portman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 09:37:11 +0200

I agree with the below

Regards

Leon

From: Parthasarathi R (partr) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 8:57 AM
To: Deepanshu Gautam; Leon Portman; Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]
Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat)
Subject: Metadata with "forced deletion" attribute [was RE: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted]

Incase everyone feels that REQ-15 and REQ-16 requirements are required, I'm fine. I'm worried from the metadata model as we are planning to remove "forced deletion" attribute in CS. ISTM, metadata model is inconsistent w.r.t requirement.

IMO, we need to add the "forced deletion" attribute in CS of metadata model to meet REQ-15 and REQ-16 with attribute values as

1) Complete
2) Media deletion only

The solution document will provide the realization (like BYE with extra SIP header) for this attribute. Please let me know your opinion on the same.

Thanks
Partha
________________________________
From: Deepanshu Gautam [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 7:50 AM
To: Parthasarathi R (partr); 'Leon Portman'; Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted
I think the original intention for these requirements was indeed the stop of recording and/or discard any metadata already submitted. The word 'cancel' *is* implying a stop-of-recording. You don't cancel existing recording, you delete existing/discard recording. I think the wording is fine.

We can add something related with "- a policy at the SRS whether to honor such a request." If we really need that at requirement level

< Regards

Deepanshu Gautam

Leon,

Please read inline.

Thanks
Partha

I am not sure about removing. It is requirement level document and how to implement it either via policy
<Partha> In case of policy, there is no need of configuration </Partha>
and metadata indication it is more protocol level decision.
<Partha> As per the last meeting, the information is not passed in metadata model. If required, we need to revisit the metada Partha>
<Partha> The requirement wordings does not look like stop of the recording. The intention is to cancel and discard the existing recording of specific RS </Partha>
For example, SRC for some reason wants to cancel recording, the best way will be to send BYE with specific error code and not metadata update event.
<Partha> I agree that different way to achieve it in SIPREC solution. Metadata model composes of all recording related sig between between SRS and SRC. As part of SIPREC solution, We may decide to use error code in BYE to cancel and discard recording but we have to represent it in the metadata model. Please let me know your opinion here. </Partha>

Regards

Leon

Ken and all,

   o REQ-015: The mechanism MUST support a means to bsp;  the recording and associated metadata for a CS.

Thanks
Partha

Happy New Year!

Ken

---

From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 17:12:34 +0530

Regarding  REQ-015 and REQ-016, I think we need to put some thought on
how the solution will  accommodate these requirements. 

There was a suggestion to indicate force deletion in BYE with specific
error codes.  I see issues with that. How will this work for persistent
recording session cases where you don't want to disconnect the RS ? Also
this will not be useful if we want to discard the metadata/recorded
media of one (OR a subset) of participants only.  Also I am not inclined
to see specific SIP error codes for indicating recording attributes. If
it is really needed to indicate its better done through Recording
metadata ( in XML).

If we are to support indication of force deletion from SRC to SRS,  how
does the SRC gets to know this information ?   Is it through some policy
configured at SRC ?  If its policy, IMO the policy could as well be
applied directly at SRS.

Or is it through user input ? If it's through user input how is this
communicated to SRC[ in case SRC happens to be B2BUA] ?

Regards,

Ram

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Parthasarathi R (partr)
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:27 PM
To: Deepanshu Gautam; Leon Portman; Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]
Subject: [siprec] Metadata with "forced deletion" attribute [was
RE:draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted]

1) Complete

2) Media deletion only

Thanks

Partha

< Regards

Deepanshu Gautam

Leon,

Please read inline.

Thanks

Partha

Partha, Hi

Regards

Leon

Ken and all,

Thanks

Partha

Happy New Year!

Ken

---

From: "Parthasarathi R (partr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 17:22:33 +0530

Paul,

Please read inline.

Thanks
Partha 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat)
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 9:31 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [siprec] draft-ietf-siprec-req-06 posted

<Partha> As Deepanshu mentioned in another mail thread, there is no
specific requirement for SRS handling but I'm not sure whether there is
an need for explicit requirement </Partha>

	Thanks,
	Paul

> For example, SRC for some reason wants to cancel recording, the best 
> way will be to send BYE with specific error code and not metadata
update event.

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:06:01 +0000

Hi all,

On Jan 4, 2011, at 2:19 AM, Deepanshu Gautam wrote:

> word ‘cancel’ *is* implying a stop-of-recording. You don’t cancel  
> existing recording, you delete existing/discard recording. I think  
> the wording is fine.

If "cancel" is really being used here to mean "stop," why not just use  
"stop" (or "terminate," as is used in section 6) in req-15 and req-16?  
It might avoid confusion over whether the recording is meant to  
continue after discarding one portion.

Alissa

>
> We can add something related with “- a policy at the SRS whether to  
> honor such a request.” If we really need that at requirement level
>   < Regards
>
> Deepanshu Gautam
> Sent: Tues day, Jan To: Leon Portman; Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]
> Th anks
> metadata model. If required, we need to revisit th e metada Partha>
> recording. The intention is to cancel and discard the existing  
> recording of specific RS </Partha>
> <Partha> I agree that different way to achieve it in SIPREC  
> solution. Metadata model composes of all recording related& nbsp;sig  
> between between SRS and SRC. As part of SIPREC solution, We may  
> decide to use error code in BYE to cancel and discard recording but  
> we have to represent it in the metadata model. Please let me know  
> your opinion here. </Partha>
>
> Regards
>
> Leon
>
>    o REQ-015: The mechanism MUST support a means to bsp;  the  
> recording and associated metadata for a CS.
>