Subject: [Sipping] Use of PUBLISH in rtcp-summary-03

From: Huybrighs Joseph <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:11:57 +0200

One additional remark regarding the use of the PUBLISH method for reporting
quality metrics.
The way PUBLISH today is being defined (at least as I understand it) assumes
some implicit relation with what has been defined as an "event state". This
can of course mean anything but for me is associated with a service
somewhere (like those dealing with presence, messaging, etc.) that uses
these events to realize some interesting interactions with users. The
statefullness of events, the fact that the state of for instance a user
changes in time, is what these services are all about.

I then have some doubt whether the use of PUBLISH for reporting a quality
score event is the right way to do. A Call Quality Event for me looks more
like a single, isolated report of a set of values. Typically only a single
target, i.e. an operator's SLA management system, will be the event target.
The simplicity of just sending the PUBLISH request is of course very
appealing, but then also an unsollicited, out-of-dialog NOTIFY accomplishes
the same.

If the choice is between PUBLISH and NOTIFY then, because PUBLISH clearly is
about sending "events", PUBLISH would be OK for me. But then I would suggest
to add additional usage schemes in draft-ietf-sip-publish-04 and allow
besides "initial", "refresh", "modify", and "remove" also a "single"
(one-shot if you like) type of operation for PUBLISH that doesn't
establishes a soft state in the Event State Compositor (ESC).

Any other thoughts about this?

Jos

System Engineering,
Siemens Subscriber Networks, Brussels
_______________________________________________
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: Mike Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:16:14 -0400

At 06:11 PM 9/29/2004 +0200, Huybrighs Joseph wrote:
>but then also an unsollicited, out-of-dialog NOTIFY accomplishes the same.

I thought this was discouraged on security grounds.

Mike