[10:22:02] burn joins the room [11:00:18] lminiero joins the room [11:00:22] lminiero leaves the room [11:02:01] Cullen Jennings joins the room [11:05:38] please use the mic [11:05:48] Ken is quiet [11:06:32] 2mkristensen joins the room [11:07:09] so what was that about the 01 draft? it was hard to hear [11:07:59] <2mkristensen> Plan to submit 15th Aug [11:09:19] Gonzalo joins the room [11:10:37] spromano joins the room [11:11:02] Simon Pietro kindly volunteered to be the jabber scribe. [11:11:18] About metadata reporting... [11:11:22] eburger joins the room [11:11:44] There are around 25 people in the room. [11:11:58] May be something not necessarily visibel at the res level.. [11:12:13] *requirements level... [11:17:02] Comment from myself: add requirement about metadata needed for correctly reproducing the recorded media [11:18:48] Need for a "cancel & delete" function, besides the already envisaged suspend/resume? [11:20:04] Q from Kaplan... [11:20:16] Requirements here are not "protocol" requirements... [11:20:49] Brian: we're definitely not at the protocol level. [11:20:58] We intend to provide a solution... [11:21:07] Kaplan: a protocol solution? [11:21:12] Brian: Yes [11:21:37] Brian: that's RTSP what we're talking about... [11:21:54] Kaplan: the solution should be at a higher layer (apps) [11:23:18] Brian: we're creating a req for "stop/restart", besides "suspend/resume" [11:23:28] RjS joins the room [11:23:57] Ability of the SRC to communicate with the SRS... [11:24:56] Make sure we're not talking about the SIP UA when we talk about the SRC [11:25:02] ...from John [11:25:47] Kaplan: I expect not to change SIP UAs at all. [11:26:22] ...but recording-aware UAs can support siprec extensions. [11:26:40] Mary Barnes: this issue was raised by Peterson at the time of the charter [11:27:20] We'll take this to the list [11:28:19] Elwell: this discussion is preempting the architecture discussion... [11:28:28] so we'll take this to the list [11:28:57] REQ 25-26...recording lifecycle [11:30:11] No comments on those REQs [11:30:42] Search & retrieval--> out of scope [11:32:29] Recording session is different from the communication session (REQ 030, ticket 36) [11:32:47] Kaplan's session-id may be reused? [11:32:56] kaplan (laughing), no! [11:33:23] Brina: don't go into the solution, now. [11:33:52] Ticket 40: Real time req [11:34:26] minimum and maximum delay in streaming media from SRC to SRS? [11:35:23] Brian: important things are reliability of the media and control capabilities [11:36:16] Elwell: this is going to be a new ticket about real-time nature [11:36:37] Ticket 33: metadata transport, covered by architecture document [11:37:05] Outstanding issues; failure modes and authentication [11:39:16] Discussion about failover and alarms [11:39:49] Ken: should this stuff be in-scope or out-of-scope in siprec? [11:40:41] Peter Musgrave: redundancy always costs a lot of work, but is definitely needed [11:41:11] Elwell (as an individual) --> such reqs should be reworded, e.g. "must not prevent..." [11:41:22] Peter: I like this [11:41:32] High availability... [11:43:51] Elwell: are you going to put in such draft all of the requirements and then possibly choose a subset of them when it comes to the actual solution you're going to put in place? [11:44:43] Peter: Let's limit the requirements to the set we want to see implemented in the solution.. [11:44:57] e.g. this high availability stuff might become a "huge rat-hole" [11:45:29] Ken: security and authentication, two more big areas. [11:45:44] How much should we go into specifying the details of these areas? [11:46:44] Brian (as individual) --> you need to have a specific requirement about both control and notification of the recording [11:48:17] Elwell: when expanding these reqs on security out, we need to keep at the req level and avoid going into the solution space [11:48:45] name? [11:48:49] on the mic [11:49:07] Paul [11:49:12] thx [11:49:21] Non repudiation issue [11:49:29] James: [11:50:12] issues associated with jurisdictions... [11:50:53] One-party vs two-party environments [11:51:20] James: I recommend that this be considered [11:51:38] Kaplan: do you want a req on location conveyance? [11:51:48] James: No [11:52:23] Elwell: this issue is not clear to people outside the US [11:52:41] James explaining the difference between one-party and two-party systems [11:53:24] Elwell: let's discuss this on the list [11:53:29] Kaplan [11:53:50] We must do this as a two-party, always, in the IETF [11:54:35] Elwell: this is a new topic --> let's go to the list [11:56:39] Things deferred to version 2, bu Ken [11:57:01] SRS initiated recording [11:57:06] media transcoding [11:57:17] zero-media-loss failover [11:58:20] Elwell: we need to have the -01 version now (next few days) [11:58:35] Then we've got to work on these open issues [11:58:44] Brian [11:59:08] I urge all of you here to be diligent in following this conversation on the list [12:00:07] Kaplan with a perples look in his face :-) [12:00:27] Presentation from Hutton on architecture [12:00:50] Agenda [12:01:11] Progress... [12:01:43] RjS leaves the room [12:02:10] Expecting a bit more review on the arch [12:02:20] Open issues [12:02:47] #17 about metadata inside INVITEs [12:03:55] #38 Interaction with a conference focus [12:05:24] suzukisn joins the room [12:05:33] Deepanshu? [12:05:37] wolfgang.beck01 joins the room [12:08:30] RjS joins the room [12:09:49] who is talking now? [12:10:13] (the person at the mic) [12:11:15] <2mkristensen> burn: Simon Romano (spromano) [12:11:17] Myself ;-) [12:11:23] ah, thx [12:11:28] now I know your voice :) [12:11:33] sorry..I could not scribe... [12:11:41] yes, that makes sense [12:16:18] We are talking about this draft, right? [12:16:19] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-romano-dcon-recording/ [12:17:14] Open issues... [12:18:37] REQ-013 [12:19:00] lminiero joins the room [12:24:45] Policy Server [12:25:39] Andrew: not in scope [12:25:48] Elwell: agreed [12:27:01] take it to the list [12:27:25] Andrew: What is a communication session? [12:27:41] Deepanshu [12:27:57] What about media transcoding? [12:28:12] From REQs it was said this was dealt with in the arch... [12:28:20] Andrew: out-of-scope? [12:28:33] Andrew: siprec building blocks [12:28:43] Kaplan: [12:29:05] wanted to say something... [12:29:11] but Elwell says there's no time. [12:30:15] Next steps... [12:30:20] Done! [12:30:43] Recording metadata model, by Paul [12:31:15] Agenda [12:31:57] People laughing at "strawhorse" [12:36:45] asking for feedbacks [12:38:55] Open issues [12:39:35] eburger leaves the room [12:39:37] Add to the architecture? [12:39:45] Create a separate doc? [12:39:47] Or? [12:41:09] Kaplan [12:41:55] Ken [12:42:01] Definitely support this work [12:43:39] James [12:43:57] Define what metadata really is [12:44:04] Comment for mic: very important to discuss this. If metadata gets detailed enough, should it also include, perhaps, simultaneous XMPP? [12:44:30] (from Dan Burnett) [12:44:36] ok...I go [12:44:56] deepanshu speaking [12:45:10] yes, i hear. thx simon [12:46:08] elwell [12:46:59] my comment is a bit out of context of the conversation now, but would still be good to mention it [12:47:11] good comment, btw [12:47:26] Paul: out of scope [12:47:34] but text is in scope [12:48:21] I guess they mean a chat session may get in, not all details about an XMPP session [12:48:41] yes, it does tie it to RTP today [12:50:06] we'll have to wait for XMPP over RTP then ;) [12:50:19] :-) [12:50:20] hum for yes [12:50:41] hum for separate [12:50:47] rough consensus as a separate document. [12:51:04] Guys...I have to catch a train in 15 minutes! I leave you. [12:51:20] Gonzalo is taking over the scribe role [12:51:24] Bye! [12:52:07] thx Simon [12:52:55] My pleasure. [12:52:57] spromano leaves the room [12:52:57] Cullen Jennings leaves the room [12:53:40] Gonzalo leaves the room [13:06:47] RjS leaves the room [13:09:31] suzukisn leaves the room [13:13:20] lminiero leaves the room [13:13:32] 2mkristensen leaves the room [13:13:49] wolfgang.beck01 leaves the room [13:14:58] burn leaves the room [13:20:08] RjS joins the room [13:22:21] RjS leaves the room [23:16:47] RjS joins the room