Subject: [siprec] Regarding <particpant> XML element having "session_id" as attribute

From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:33:23 +0000

Hi all,

In the current draft [ draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-07] the schema is
defined in such a way that each instance of <participant> XML element MUST
have "session_id" as attribute. Per the agreement we had in IETF82 ( Look
at Issue 1 in the minutes of
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/siprec.txt), we can have
use-cases where a participant need not be associated with a CS. So we
agreed that the attributes of <participant> are common and independent of
session. Any attribute of participant that is scoped to a session has to
be listed in <participantsessionassoc> XML element.

By going this way we don't need <participant> to have session_id as
attribute.

The above change is already reflected in the metadata model but the schema
still shows session_id as  attribute for <participant> which is
inconsistent/wrong.

So we will have to change the schema to reflect the above and the new
schema for that portion will look as:

<xs:complexType name="participant">
       <xs:sequence>
           <xs:element name="nameID" type="nameID"
             maxOccurs="1"/>
        <xs:any namespace='##other'
                   minOccurs='0'
                   maxOccurs='unbounded'
                   processContents='lax'/>
       </xs:sequence>
       <xs:attribute name="participant_id" type="xs:base64Binary"
            use="required"/>
</xs:complexType>

A Instance would look like (note I have shown <participantsessassoc> for
the sake of completeness) :

participant
  participant_id="zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw==">
   <nameID aor=sip:[email-masked]>
     <name xml:lang="it">Paul</name>
   </nameID>
             </participant>
<participantsessionassoc
   participant_id="zSfPoSvdSDCmU3A3TRDxAw=="
     session_id="hVpd7YQgRW2nD22h7q60JQ==">
         <associate-time>2010-12-16T23:41:07Z</associate-time>
</participantsessionassoc>

Let me know in case some one has issues with the above change. If not we
will make this change in the next revision.

Regards,
Ram