Subject: [BLISS] Minutes from MLA meeting of 1/29/08

From: "Jason Fischl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 22:19:57 -0800

Date/Time:
 2007.01.29 8:00PST-9:00PST

Attendees
 Jason Fischl
 Shida Schubert
 Alan Johnston
 Derek MacDonald
 Fernando Lombardo
 Michael Procter
 Theo Zourzouvillys
 Raj Jain
 Venkatesh Venkataraman
 Bill Mitchell

Agenda

 1. Figure out the meeting frequency.
 2. Requirement Bash.
 3. Action Plan.

Discussions

 1. Figure out the meeting frequency
 > Will have a weekly call on the same time slot.
Bridge Details:  +1 604-320-3344 x0330 or sip:[email-masked]

 2. Requirement Bash
 > What's missing?
   1). Interaction with privacy.
    e.g. When privacy is enabled, it shouldn't be
         possible to INVITE/JOIN to that dialog with
         privacy enabled.
    >> Some suggestions: mark the dialog as "private"/"locked"
                       : Use state agent to change the status
                         of the dialog in mid-dialog.
    >> Conclusion: Definitely need some text.

   2). Seizing Line/Appearance is missing.
    >> Feedback: One of the most desired features, users requested.
               : It was left out because it doesn't interfere with
                 the current proposal, it's all in the detail.
    >> Conclusion: Will add text to cover this.

   3). Concept of appearance number is it mandatory.
    >> Feedback: UA may not always have the UI to render the appearance
                 number.
    >> Things to consider: Consider the cases where UA doesn't have the
                 appropriate UI but allow it to participate in the group.

   4). Concept of call-park/pickup
    >> During the discussion, it was clear that concept of
call-park/pick-up
       existed in BLA/MLA/SLA.
    >> Suggestions from chair: Whatever overlaps need to be in sync with
                               call-park/pick-up draft.

   5). Provisioning is it in scope?
    >> Yes, text is necessary.

   6). How is it done in IP-PBX?
    >> For what I have seen, most are following the bla draft, and some
       uses overlap dialog.
    >> Action: Chair will ask IP-PBX vendors to get some feedbacks.

   7). Backward compatibility
    >> Agreement on not to complicate the draft simply to accomodate the
       UA that doesn't support the recommended primitives. Will look into
       ways to accomodate them without bending backwards.

   8). Do we want to consider NAT Traversal?
    >> Feedback: Would need to draw out where the NAT will be sitting.
                 Use of GRUU/Outbound may simplify a lot of things.
    >> Conclusion: If it throws up new NAT traversal scenario then
                   should be addressed, otherwise should re-use what's
                   out there already. Even if something needs to be
                   addressed, it should be addressed elsewhere and not
                   in this draft. (e.g. SIPPING).
                 : As for the use of GRUU/Outbound, the team will be look
                   at its uses cases-by-cases. Don't want to use unstable
                   spec too aggressively.

   9). Use Forking vs. NOTIFY only.
    >> Feedback: Possibly take Forking out of the picture and only suggest
                 the use of NOTIFY.
    >> Conclusion: Need to look at both options, they both have pros/cons.
    >> Some alternatives discussed: Alert-Info with NOTIFY,
                                    INVITE without offer(Making the
forking approach more reasonable)

 3. Action Plan
 BLISS draft will be updated.
  > Alan will add some strawman text until next week.
   > Text on privacy will be provided by Raj
   > Some text is needed on the analysis of how the recommendation will
     work for each of the variations (SLA, MLA, BLA etc.). Need to find
     out whether there is something different fundamentally that either
     peer needs to know which variant is being used or additional extension
     to enable the variants.
   > Need some text on this.
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss