Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix

From: "Samir Srivastava" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 02:27:08 -0600

These loops are caused by bad registrations at different proxies. Can we
change our registration process to fix this ?

At the Receipt of REGISTER, Registrar returns "202 Accepted" and then it
runs loop-detect (with 
Incrementing MAX-FORWARDS) and if there is loop caused or not, it uses
the Register event package to tell the outcome of audit.

The above audit is needed only when new registration are added, these
audits  are not needed for  refresh and unregistration. The above is
needed when Follow me kind of service is implemented with registration. 

This will not require any stuff with node Id etc for each transaction
including retransmissions etc.

When routes are added Administratively, there also it can be applied. If
they are using any regular expression etc, then Administrator should
take care of loop with loop-detect tool to verify the routes.

Thx
Samir

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 9:02 PM
To: Drage, Keith (Keith)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix

draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-01 has been submitted to the repository.
Until it shows up there, you can find it at:
http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-01.txt

Based on the discussions in the SIPPING meeting after Keith's note below
was sent, I have NOT changed the strength of the requirement to use the
algorithm in 3261 as indicated below. This new version of the draft
leaves the requirement at SHOULD.

I added text noting that branches to destinations created using outbound
are known not to loop and thus will satisfy the "MUST ensure the request
does not loop"  
requirement without performing
additional loop detection. The wording is chosen to keep the new
reference to outbound informative.

I removed the reference to the alternate loop detection algorithm being
discussed in SIPPING.

I also corrected several spelling errors and changed "in the wild" to
something hopefully easier to translate.

This draft passes the idnits tool's checks. I believe it is ready for
last call once it appears in the repository.

Thanks,

RjS

On Mar 22, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Drage, Keith (Keith) wrote:

> (as chair)
>
> The face-to-face sip session in ietf 65 identified that draft-ietf- 
> sip-fork-loop-fix is ready as follows.
>
> WGLC/Publish this draft at current scope (loop detection only) 
> Continue discussions on other potential improvements as separate 
> efforts
>
> Robert will update the draft for resubmission as -01 early next week 
> with the following changes (plus some nit fixes):
>
> change 1: SHOULD use 3261 loop detection will change to MAY change 2: 
> branches to connections created using the outbound mechanism
>           won't count towards requiring loop detection. That is, loop
>           detection will be MUST if retargetting to more than one 
> branch
>           that is not a connection established with outbound.
>
> If any members of the WG believe that this draft, with the identified 
> revisions, is not ready to move to WGLC, then please identify this to 
> the list, giving appropriate reasons for your opinion.
>
> Additionally, if there are any NITS or other issues you have noticed 
> that need fixing, then please send them quickly to the list or the 
> authors as appropriate in order that the version going for WGLC 
> includes as many fixes as possible.
>
> regards
>
> Keith, Dean
>
> Keith Drage
> Lucent Technologies
> [email-masked]
> tel: +44 1793 776249
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://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

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://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

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://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: "Dale R. Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 14:15:30 -0500

> the Register event package to tell the outcome of audit.

It might be better to not reject the REGISTER, since later actions might
cure the loop without altering *this* registration.  (Also, since a
rejected registration is not in the database, the next re-registration
attempt also appears to be new, and triggers the loop test again.)

But we could add an element to the register event package to report the
outcome of a loop-detection audit.

Dale