Subject: [Sip] Let us focus on the major issues

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:22:23 -0500

Folks,

Time is running out on completion of the bis spec. We REALLY need to get 
to a wglc in a few weeks in order to meet the 3gpp release schedules. 
One of the biggest barriers to that right now are the major open issues 
that have been discussed on the list. Of the 34 currently open issues, 
the majority are minor, save SIX:

* Issue #113: overlapping INVITE (we agreed to allow overlapping non-INVITE)

* Issue #184: maximum message sizes for SIP over UDP, truncated responses.

* Issue #266: the heterogeneous error response forking problem

* [Several]: Source routing, general proxy routing logic

* Issue #232: TLS v. IPSec

* Issue #364: offer/counter-offer/answer model

I'd like to strongly encourage the group to expend their energies 
primarily on these issues; the bis editors team has gotten owners 
assigned for each of these that will push to drive them towards 
completion (save the TLS v. IPSec nonsense, which is punted to the 
security team). Please, folks, if you have questions, opinions or 
concerns, voice them concisely and promptly.

I will also be working to close up the other 28 minor issues; on those, 
I ask people to show restraint against needless argument, and to commit 
to helping resolve them rather than emailing for emails sake.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.            72 Eagle Rock Avenue
Chief Scientist                         First Floor
dynamicsoft                             East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                 FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                  PH:  (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:52:14 -0800 (PST)

> * Issue #184: maximum message sizes for SIP over UDP, truncated responses.

After all of the discussion, I think that Henning
(?) had it right: ignore the issue. This seems
like a very deep rathole as you have amply
demonstrated, and despite IESG unhappiness with
UDP, the cat is already out of the bag here so it
would be pointless deprecate UDP. If we do
anything, maybe saying that TCP is a MUST
implement so that compliant devices aren't built
which cannot switch to TCP if this indeed proves
to be a problem.

 > * Issue #232: TLS v. IPSec

IPsec is the only thing which helps UDP which is
arguably the most vulnerable. People are free to
use TLS, but SIP needs to recommend something that
covers all of SIP's bases. Period. We cannot 
mandate something that is going to be useless
for many, many cheap and existing UA's.

 > concerns, voice them concisely and promptly.

? 

Are you saying that this won't be part of bis?

	Mike

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:56:54 -0500

> which cannot switch to TCP if this indeed proves

Past history aside, I think that we need to do better than
ignore this if we want to pass it through IESG.

> for many, many cheap and existing UA's.

I have concluded that arguing this point is futile. The simple fact is 
that there are cases where TLS is preferable over IPSec, and 
vice-a-versa. Maybe the only solution we can agree upon is to mandate 
both as MUST implement ;)

> Are you saying that this won't be part of bis?

No, security is going to be in bis but is being developed by the 
security team.

-Jonathan R.

---

From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:15:05 -0800

It seems like a generally bad thing that we do not have a way to correlate a
SSRC in a RTP stream with the media stream in the SDP that it relates to.
Similarly it should be easier to correlate media stream in SDP from one
transaction to the next (fid please?). The endlessly growing SDP is, ah,
ugly.

If we solved our RTP <-> SDP <-> dialog correlation problems - would Issue
364 go away?

Thanks, Cullen

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 09:29:11 -0500

> If we solved our RTP <-> SDP <-> dialog correlation problems - would

I don't think so. There seem to be sufficient other problems for which 
people want to use a three-way handshake that its still an issue. I am 
in the process of collecting the various problems people are trying to 
solve in order to figure this one out properly.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.