1. 1 SIPREC Recording Metadata Model for SRS (draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-01) June 23, 2011 Virtual Interim meeting Ram Mohan R On behalf of the team Team: Paul Kyzivat, Ram Mohan R, R Parthasarathi

2. Agenda Changes in draft-ietf-siprec-metadata from the previous version Discuss Open items in Metadata Model Next Steps

3. Changes from Previous version The new version of draft has following changes (Most of which were agreed in last interim meeting and rest over mailer) : – Associate CS block directly with RS since CS-Group is optional – RS shall be retained in model but no XML representation is needed[ RS dialog will serve the purpose]. Hence attributes of RS shall be removed – Comments from Charles/Henry/Muthu (on instance diagrams and minor nits)

4. sends receives 1 1 1 0..* Metadata Model 4 Recording Session(RS) Communication Session(CS) Group Media Stream Extension Data Communication Session(CS) 1 Participant 1.. * 2..* 0..1 1..* 1 0..* 1.. * 0..* 1.. * 0..* 1..* 0..*

5. Metadata Model: Communication Session Group 5 Communication Session Communication Session Group (CS Group) CS Group unique ID Extension Data 10..* Open Items:  Any objection for the addition of Optional Stop/Start time attribute Recording Session (RS) 1..* 0..* 0..1 1..*

6. Metadata Model: Media Stream 6 Media Stream Start Time End Time Media Stream Reference Extension Data 10..* Closed Items:  Codec params (CS SDP) removed Open Items:  Does MS has a life outside CS? [ e.g. MMOH cases and transfer by 3PCC with multiple CS and single MS] – There is a general inclination to keep MS local to CS. However it may have some issues described in http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/siprec/curren t/msg02091.html http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/siprec/curren t/msg02091.html – How do we want to go forward on this ? Participant sends receives 0.. * 1.. * 0..* CS 1..* 0..*

7. Metadata Model: Media Stream  What does an MS object represent? – There was a general agreement on option 2 of http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/siprec/current/msg02044.html. Towards this we agreed there is a need to have an attribute(like “content”) in MS block to tie together the two MS ( of same content type) that represent the two sides of a single conversationhttp://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/siprec/current/msg02044.html – What should content attribute have as value ? And how SRC shall derive the same ? – Is RFC 4796 sufficient (as Charles says)? or do we need content element in recording metadata xml schema ?

8. Metadata Model: Participant 8 Participant AoR list Name Extension Data 10..* Open Items:  Participant lifetime is within the scope of CS or CSG/RS.  Is Optional Stop/Start time attribute needed? Communication Session 1..* 2..* Media Stream sends receives 0.. * 1.. * 0..*

9. General Open items in model draft Use of RFC 2119 language in the metadata model – Do we want to leave the current language ( use of RFC 2119) as it is for now and re-visit later when we merge format in to model ? OR – Do we want to remove all the normative statements right now (in the next revision) and have them (around the format portions) when we merge format and model ?

10. Next steps Close the remaining open items [we have only few minor ones] Is it the right time to merge format doc with model document ?