Subject: [SIP] QoS-Enabled and manyfolks draft

From: William Marshall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:35:26 -0400 (EDT)

The following message was sent to the list on April 6,
but I never received it back.  Apologies to all who
got it then, and have to read it again.

Bill Marshall
[email-masked]

> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: QoS-Enabled and manyfolks draft
> 
> Henry Sinnreich and I have been looking into whether the
> manyfolks draft covers QoS-Enabled as well as QoS-Assured.
> Our conclusion is that the mechanism described covers it,
> but that some additional text describing the procedures
> is needed.
> 
> The procedures for QoS-Enabled would be like this:
> 
> The caller sends an INVITE, with a line in SDP that says
> a=qos:optional sendrecv.  UAS gets that and sends back a 183
> (acording to manyfolks draft) that includes an SDP, with a line
> a=qos:optional sendrecv confirm.  Originator tries and fails
> to get qos, but that is OK since qos was only optional, so its
> PRECONDITION-MET message says a=qos:failure sendrecv.  UAC
> obviously made a decision to proceed, in that it sent
> the PRECONDITION-MET message.
> 
> Maybe UAC asked the originating user before deciding this, like
> a "can't get QoS.  Proceed? (y or n)?"
> 
> UAS then makes the choice of whether to proceed or not, and
> sends either 180-Ringing or 580-Precondition-Failure.  Maybe it
> asked the destination user the same question, but with a
> distinct ringing sequence.  If lack of QoS is accepted, UAS
> sends the 200-OK and call completes with best-effort.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Bill Marshall
> [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
SIP mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip