Subject: [Insipid] 3.X Traffic Monitoring: evaluation

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:25:54 -0500

INSIPID

Here is the set of use-cases and requirements discussed in Vancouver. 
We are to come to consensus on each of these (or not), and if we 
agree the use-case or requirement should be in the document, we need 
to determine acceptable wording for each. The Subject: line will 
contain the specific topic (which use-case or requirement) for this 
thread. PLEASE do not cross contaminate the threads. Any new topic 
SHOULD have its own Subject line. The chairs will monitor and call 
for consensus on each use-case and requirement (and wording of each).

Please make constructive suggestions regarding each you care about.

The Section numbers will be reordered once consensus has been reached 
on all items we're covering, so don't worry about that part.

3.X Traffic Monitoring:

UA A and UA B communicate using SIP messaging with a SIP B2BUA acting 
as a middlebox which belongs to a SIP service provider. For privacy 
reasons, the B2BUA changes the SIP headers that reveal information 
related to the SIP users, device or domain identity. The service 
provider uses an external device to monitor and log all SIP traffic 
coming to and from the B2BUA.  In the case of failures reported by 
the customer or when security issue arise (e.g. theft of service), 
the service provider has to analyze the logs from the past several 
days or weeks and correlates those messages which were messages for a 
single end-to-end SIP session.

For this scenario, we must consider three particular use cases:

a)  The UAs A and B support the end-to-end Session Identifier.

Derived Requirements: REQ1, REQ4, REQ5, REQ8.

b) Only the UA A supports the end-to-end Session Identifier, the UA B does not.

Derived Requirements: REQ1, REQ4, REQ5, REQ7, REQ8.

c) UA A and UA B do not support the end-to-end Session Identifier.

Derived Requirements: REQ1, REQ4, REQ5, REQ7, REQ8