Subject: [Sipping] FW: New Version draft-vanelburg-sipping-private-network-indication-01

From: "Hans Erik van Elburg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:38:44 +0100

A new version of I-D,
draft-vanelburg-sipping-private-network-indication-01.txt has been
successfuly submitted.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanelburg-sipping-private-network-indic
ation-01

Revision Information
- Added a solution based on a new header.  
- Added Overview, Behaviour and Header Definition sections.  
- Updated the trust domain definition.  Improved some of the existing
text
  based on received comments.

Filename:	 draft-vanelburg-sipping-private-network-indication
Revision:	 01
Title:		 Requirements for explicit private network indication
Creation_date:	 2008-02-22
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 15

Abstract:
This document describes why a private network indication is needed.
A private network indication allows other nodes in a network to treat
private network traffic to a different set of rules then public network
traffic.  The indication also distinguishes one private network from
another private network.

Best Regards,
/Hans Erik

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

---

From: "Leis, Peter (NSN - DE/Muenich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:47:58 +0100

Hans Erik

some comments

7.2.1
I don't understand why incoming public traffic to a corporate needs to
be marked as Private. I thought the "private" indication is only usefull
in public networks.

7.2.2
- "MUST support" this extension is rather vague. What is the real
requirement here in terms of protocol usage? Are there any procedures
expected to happen in the proxy?

- I propose to add that in case the indication is received from a
entitiy that is not trusted, then the Proxy MUST remove the indication

7.2.3
what is meant with "converting private traffic to public traffic"?  Is
forwarding a request that contains the new indication towards a user
(not beloinging to any corporate) also regarded as "converting private
traffic to public traffic"?

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Hans Erik 
> van Elburg
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:39 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sipping] FW: New 
> Versiondraft-vanelburg-sipping-private-network-indication-01
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D,

---

From: "Hans Erik van Elburg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:37:37 +0100

Hi Peter,

Thanks for reading the draft.

On 7.2.1:
Breakin can happen inside the public network. But I think we need to add
some extra information here saying that the indication only needs to be
added if the next hop or sip trunk send to does not implicitly mean that
the traffic is private.

On 7.2.2:
To be able to apply the special processing behaviours you have to
understand the extension. So you must support the extension. The special
processing behaviour are dependent on the specific business agreements
and regulatory requirements.

PL> - I propose to add that in case the indication is received from a
entitiy that is not trusted, then the Proxy MUST remove the indication
I think this is covered by 7.2.3, do you think that needs to be
clarified?

on 7.2.3:
The traffic should not be delivered to a user outside the enterprise
with an indicator. Because effectively the traffic has left the private
network (it is public network traffic). Do you think that such would be
clarified by having descriptive text elsewhere in the draft describing
breakout and breakin functions?

Best Regards,
/Hans Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: Leis, Peter (NSN - DE/Muenich) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 9:48 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Hans Erik van Elburg
Subject: RE: [Sipping] FW: New

 Hans Erik

some comments

7.2.1

7.2.2

7.2.3

Peter

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Hans Erik van 
> Elburg
> private network traffic to a different set of rules then public 
> network traffic.  The indication also distinguishes one private 
> network from another private network.
>  
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> /Hans Erik
> 
> 
> 
> This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use 
> [email-masked] for questions on current sip Use 
> [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP
>

---

From: "Leis, Peter (NSN - DE/Muenich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:57:39 +0100

Hans Erik

you are right, 7.2.2 does not have to talk about removing the new
indication. This is covered in 7.2.3.

on 7.2.3 it needs to be sufficiently clear, that a "regular" user (i.e.
a non-enterprise user) never gets the indication. Maybe some words can
be indluded in 7.2.3. However, this leaves me with the question "how
does the edge proxy know, that the next hop is a regular user and not
belonging to an enterprise"? 

regs
Peter 

> From: ext Hans Erik van Elburg 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:38 PM
> To: Leis, Peter (NSN - DE/Muenich); [email-masked]
> Cc: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping

---

From: "Hans Erik van Elburg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:43:30 +0100

Peter,

I think that we need to capture somehow that the indication is never
delivered to an end user device.

Further we may need to clarify that private network traffic is never
send to a non-enterprise user. That means that an edge proxy for a
"non-enterprise" user should never even receive this.

We need to fix that in the next version of the draft if it is not clear.

Thanks,
/Hans Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: Leis, Peter (NSN - DE/Muenich) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:58 AM
To: Hans Erik van Elburg; [email-masked]
Cc: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Subject: RE: [Sipping] FW: New

Hans Erik

regs
Peter 

> Breakin can happen inside the public network. But I think we need to 
> add some extra information here saying that the indication only needs 
> to be added if the next hop or sip trunk send to does not implicitly 
> mean that the traffic is private.
> 
> On 7.2.2:

> with an indicator. Because effectively the traffic has left the 
> private network (it is public network traffic). Do you think that such

> would be clarified by having descriptive text elsewhere in the draft 
> describing breakout and breakin functions?
> 
> Best Regards,
> /Hans Erik
> 

> be marked as Private. I thought the "private" indication is only 
> usefull in public networks.
> 
> 7.2.2