Minutes from Mediactrl Meeting – IETF 75

July 30, 2009

 

Working Group Home Page

Chairs:
Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
        Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>

 

Scribe:

        Christian Schmidt <christian.1.schmidt@nsn.com>

Agenda Bash

 

No changes to the proposed agenda…

 

The chairs quizzed the working group about Media Resource Broker. The milestone dates have passed. We’ve made some progress since IETF 74, but not a huge amount – do people NEED MRB?

 

Martin Dolly: Any large deployment would benefit from MRB. Other carriers may not know this yet, but they will.

 

Are people going to work on MRB? We’re forming a design team to move the document forward – at least five people raised their hands at this point (the names appear later in these notes).

 

MRB

 

Have published first WG version of document, continued definition of MRB publishing interface, completed “in-line” strawman.

 

Eric Burger: Do we agree that we need both models of operation (inline and query)?

 

Martin Dolly: For us the query model makes more sense, for smaller deployments in-line model makes more sense, so you should include both modes.

 

Chris Boulton (remote) agrees.

 

Two models for in-line - In-line Unaware MRB Mode (IUMM) and In-line Aware MRB Mode (IAMM)

IUMM

 

Eric Burger: Do we get this for free or is it more work?

Lorenzo: A bit more is needed. It is easier to move

Chris Boulton (remote): This is important for migration, requesting less effort.

Spencer – we want the spec to be useful, but we want it to be used, and the spec has to be finished in order for people to use it.

 

Opinions of the group? About half the people in the room have read the strawman proposal that Lorenzo posted.

Martin Dolly: Only interested in some parts of the ID.

Spencer: We are looking for WGLC on MRB very soon.

IAMM

 

Any concerns about multiparty MIME? No reaction

Any concerns about B2BUA? No reaction

 

Anwar Siddouri: Automatic initiation of calls at a given time of day, do you plan something like this?

Martin Dolly: Would be done at the application server not at media server level.

Anwar Siddouri: E.g. corporate conference call, tool for automatic setup. A kind of automatic triggering.

Lorenzo Miniero: It would be initiated by application server anyway.

Eric Burger: Stateless media servers have been the MEDIACTRL model for the past 4 years. The media server is and will remain stateless.

Consumer interface

 

Is the use or re-INVITE and UPDATE acceptable?

Chris Boulton: Yes we want to do this.

Martin Dolly: Yes we support this.

Publishing interface

 

Editors have made some progress on publishing interface since IETF 74, but have only sent about half the known suggestions to the list for comments.

 

Set-up of a dedicated team to nail down the rest of the Publishing interface and finish up the doc.

  • Chris Boulton
  • Martin Dolly
  • Lorenzo Miniero
  • Scott McGlashan
  • Gary Munson
  • Michael Trank
  • Victor Paulsamy

 

The design team will quickly publish an MRB draft revision that includes the strawman text, and start working more intensely.

Call Flows

 

Spencer Dawkins: please ask onlist that people report other common mistakes, because we have been getting good feedback on other documents from implementers who aren't in the room today.

 

Spencer Dawkins: Session recording – moving very quickly in DISPATCH, is it stable enough to be included in the MEDIACTRL Call Flows document?

Eric Burger (in Jabber): [Eric thinks Spencer is on drugs if he thinks a brand new, not-even-requirements-are-done specification will be useful for MEDIACTRL...]

 

Scott: Update call flow to reflect the change in connection id syntax?

Lorenzo Miniero: We will deal with that.

Work Plan for IETF 76

 

Robert is waiting for revised documents from us. Framework is waiting for MMUSIC review, IVR is waiting for Framework (because it’s pointing to the updated Framework draft and isn’t consistent with the previous version).

 

The chairs have asked the authors to hold the MIXER draft while we sort out IVR issues that may be the same in the MIXER draft, but this draft has been stable for a long time, so we know how to finish it – no change to MIXER milestone for IESG.

 

Ready to submit a revised Framework draft? Scott says “yes”. The chairs say “ship it”.

 

We’ll make the following milestone updates:

  • MRB – September WGLC, November to IESG.
  • Call Flows – October 2009 WGLC, December to IESG.

 

Meet in Hiroshima? We will have critical mass to meet, based on a show of hands now. Spencer and Eric will request a one-hour slot, if needed.

 

We’re planning to be finished by end-of-year.

 

The working group ended its session and immediately went into design team mode to make progress on the MRB draft.