Subject: Re: comments on draft-rosenberg-sip-3pcc-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:37:12 +0530

Yes you are right. If someone chooses the INFO (or whatever method), he
does not want the controller to intervene
anyway, so its not a handicap - so if the controller does not get any
feedback - well thats how he wanted it.

Anyway, its not entirely true that if the controller is not *directly* in
the control path, that it will get no feed back

One set on people I once interacted with wanted the following setup:

They already had a little SIP server (kindof) and they wanted to regulate
some prototype clients we wrote just so that when
a client established a call, a notice would go to the server, and when the
client terminated, a notice would go to the server - they
wanted to show it in their logs. They did *not* want to route all signals
through their server.

so we decided to do something like a willSupplyUUIE in H,323.

When the clients registered with the server, the Sever would send them an
INFO message with a header we defined on our own
which would ask the client to send an INFO back to the server whenever it
either connected or disconnected (the header was proprietary of course).
The client would either OK it or send a Bad Response - in which case the
server would kick out his registration.

So client would talk directly to each other, and whenever it either set up
or broke up, it would send an INFO to the server.

So the server got feedback from the clients without having to route all
message, including retransmissions to and fro.

Anyway, I guess there are always ways to do it. We just happened to do it
in the above way.

(Of course, there are issues like trust - what happens if the clients dont
send ? or will a client accept a commandfrom the controller
  incase all of a sudden it decides to step in actively etc -pbly with some
thought they could be resolved - if it is needed ?)

Just thought Id menton this, incase someone thought willSupplyUUIE was a
nice thing to do without the 'controller' sitting in-between always

Regds
Arjun

--
Arjun Roychowdhury @ Hughes Software Systems

jr> We have discussed that as well (OPTIONS with Also was the initial
jr>  proposal). It suffers from the problem that there isn't much feedback
on
jr>  call state to the controller, and no subsequent control is possible.
jr>  Thus, it doesn't solve much.

jr>  -Jonathan R.

> without signals going one way and media another.
>
> Infact, if you really want to do it that way, why couldnt a controller
> simply send an INFO to A - telling it that it needs to contct B ?