Subject: [Sip] Revised agenda for SIP -- needs more work yet

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:39:07 -0600

Keith and I just spent the past three hours revising the agenda for  
SIP at IETF 71.

It's very full, and we are not going to have time to discuss  
everything we need to discuss -- we have only 2.5 hours this time.

Please take a look at:

http://www.softarmor.com/mediawiki/index.php/SIP_Agenda_IETF_71

(no, I'm not trying to send the MHTML by cut-and-paste again given  
what happened last time).

and see if you have any suggestions. Remember, we're supposed to  
concentrate on the chartered working items first (that's the purpose  
of having a charter).

Depending on what we decide about discussing session policies, I can  
see adding that time slice to the INFO discussion. But since we've  
only got 10 minutes for INFO and I can't see resolving that furball in  
25 minutes, it doesn't help much.

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.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: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:00:38 -0500

10 minutes on the phone number dichotomy thing isn't going to be even 
close enough to cut it. It should be either zero or a more significant 
number.

We have 30 minutes on media security. The only chartered item there is 
the requiremetns document which I thought was mostly done. Why is there 
so much time dedicated to this? I would rather move that to INFO or the 
identity mess.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   499 Thornall St.
Cisco Fellow                                   Edison, NJ 08837
Cisco, Voice Technology Group
[email-masked]
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (408) 902-3084
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.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: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:40:02 -0800

At Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:00:38 -0500,
> so much time dedicated to this? I would rather move that to INFO or the 

I agree with Jonathan here. The media-security requirements document
is basically done (see my review earlier today). What it needs it to
be WGLCed and sent to the IESG.

My vote here is for taking this time and giving it to the
TOTE/INFO/mediactrl discussion, which seems like it has a lot of
important and complicated issues that need to be worked through.

-Ekr

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:47:15 -0500

And I would think the two X.509-cert related drafts could be combined and take less than 30 minutes.

I agree with Jonathan about the phone number/identity topic - considering the discussion-leader field says "Most of the Working Group", it will take the allotted 10 minutes just to pass the microphone around. ;)

-hadriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rosenberg
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:01 PM
> To: Dean Willis
> Cc: IETF SIP List; Cullen Jennings
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Revised agenda for SIP -- needs more work yet
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:46:55 -0600

>http://www.softarmor.com/mediawiki/index.php/SIP_Agenda_IETF_71

I thought (and hoped) Resource-Priority in Responses
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-sip-rph-in-responses-01.txt
was within the charter (but without a specific milestone) that we can 
make a WG item and WGLC about the same day?

Keith (putting him on the spot) mentioned this in Chicago.  Vancouver 
muddied the water with the introduction of "use-case#2" - which has 
now been explicitly removed from consideration by this version.

What do the WG (and chairs) think about this?

---

From: "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:49:36 -0600

James,

I fully support your proposal.

Cheers,

Martin 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
James M. Polk
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 7:47 PM
To: Dean Willis; IETF SIP List
Cc: Cullen Jennings
Subject: Re: [Sip] Revised agenda for SIP -- needs more work yet

I thought (and hoped) Resource-Priority in Responses
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-sip-rph-in-responses-01.t
xt
was within the charter (but without a specific milestone) that we can 
make a WG item and WGLC about the same day?

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:53:56 -0800

> combined and take less than 30 minutes.

I have not managed to send comments yet because I am just reading  
drafts still but, I have a lot of ink on my copies of these. Expect  
some emails. I'm not saying these need agenda time - I'll leave that  
up to the chairs - possible the comments will just be dealt with on  
list but I did want to flag that I suspect these might not be 100%  
done yet.

Cullen <with my individual contributor hat on>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:57:53 -0800

The problem here is, well, time. At other times we may have had  
constraints of not enough WGs, or not enough cycles from chairs, or  
not enough chairs, but the issues we are having right here is hours in  
the IETF agenda.

Right now we have some conflicts in the scheduling with WG and we only  
have two BOFs. Most of the RAI WG has less time than they want but SIP  
is the most squeezed IMHO. If I had another hour of agenda time in RAI  
right now, SIP is the WG that I would try to give it to and i suspect  
Jon would be on the same page.

The SIP chairs did request more time and did predict that there would  
be a lot of stuff we were trying to squeeze into this. I've asked  
around to chairs of some other RAI WGs and asked if they really think  
they will use up all their time but most are already feeling like it  
is a tight schedule. As we see the agendas for other WG's get  
finalized it might become apparent that we could move some time around  
but I view this as a fairly unlikely possibility.

One observation would be if we could finish (or shoot) some WGs we  
would have more time. Similarly if we could finish a bunch of WG  
items, we would have more time for things. I have lost count of how  
many times the WG has taken a HUM on how the keep-alive timers in  
outbound will work. (I don't mind embarrassing the authors of outbound  
so it is more or less my case study on how not to do a draft but there  
are plenty of similar cases around). Any time people HUM yes to adopt  
a new WG milestone, they need to realize they are putting that work at  
a higher priority level than all the stuff that is not a WG milestone.  
Similarly when we form new WGs it reduces the time available for  
existing WGs. Keep in mind we are running a 2 hours RUCUS BOF which is  
largely related to SIP security so we already do have another 2 hours  
on SIP security.

So what can we do? Two years ago we had an RAI meeting to talk about  
this subject and others. Some of the ideas that came out of that have  
been implemented - splitting the BLISS work out to separate WG and the  
formation of the RAI WG to helps chairs both came out this.  Jon and I  
had talked about having another meeting on this topic at IETF 71 but  
when we saw the agenda we decided it was too full to fit this in. I  
would not be surprised if we tried to run this at the Dublin IETF.   
One thing we can do is encourage stuff to get finished instead of just  
being endlessly discussed. If something has been discussed at a  
meeting, and nothing that would change the discussion has changed  
since the previous discussion, it is surprising to me that we keep  
discussing it anyways.

I spend a ton of time trying to get a workable schedule out on time  
for RAI. (And many thanks to all the RAI Chairs - they do a good job  
of jumping all the hoops to make this happen). I would love feedback  
on what we need to be spending less time on. I get plenty of feedback  
on what needs more.

Cullen <with my AD hat on>

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:02:32 -0500

I concur.

Janet

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:57:27 -0600

On Feb 28, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> 10 minutes on the phone number dichotomy thing isn't going to be  
> even close enough to cut it. It should be either zero or a more  
> significant number.
>
> We have 30 minutes on media security. The only chartered item there  
> is the requiremetns document which I thought was mostly done. Why is  
> there so much time dedicated to this? I would rather move that to  
> INFO or the identity mess.

Me too. But hey, the media security requirements document is  
CHARTERED. We have permission to work on it and a commitment to a  
deliverable, with a published milestone. We don't have that for INFO  
or the identity mess (even though I think media security is blocked on  
the identity mess -- our AD currently disagrees).

--
Dean

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:01:14 -0600

> list but I did want to flag that I suspect these might not be 100%  

And as we know from experience, 15 minutes is the barest minimum for a  
topic on which there is discussion. I only felt these could get  
anything done in 30 minutes for two because there is some overlap.

Now, if we could get this stuff discussed effectively on list BEFORE  
the meeting, I'd be delighted to dedicate more time to the topics that  
are keeping us all awake at night.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:32:43 -0800

> the identity mess -- our AD currently disagrees).

Dean - I think we must be having some serious miscommunications - many  
times in the past I have had enough typos in my emails that no one  
could understand what I might have been thinking but ....

I don't think I said that. The two things I thought I said that might  
have been confused are:

1) I don't think the E.164 discussion is holding up milestone items in  
MEDIACTRL or SIMPLE

2) I don't think a problem in some mechanism such as 4474 should be  
holding up the media security requirements draft. (If I could bold  
requirements in the previous sentences I would)

I certainly do think it is important that we have a clear  
understanding of how E.164 numbers fit into the overall SIP security  
picture.  Sorry if I said something that made you think otherwise.

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:00:42 +0100

(As SIP WG cochair)

As Dean already said, we spend 3 hours last night trying to plan a 2 1/2
hour session based on input we do not completely have. We don't think we
finished, but this was the best we could reach so far in the time
available. Things can move up, but they don't solve the fundamental
problem that we don't have enough time. It was not our idea to limit SIP
to a single session - this was forced on us by the ADs.

Modification of this agenda is more likely to occur not by complaining
about the time allocated, but by the presence of technical discussion on
list over the next 8 days.

Some generals:

We have taken the principle that if discussion time is needed on
chartered items specifically, then they come first, and more
specifically highest priority for any discussion needed to get something
out of WGLC and into publication request. This is then followed by
documents that we envisaged could hold up chartered items (in this and
other groups) if not discussed. Then follow the other items where time
has been requested.

Some specifics based on comments received so far:

Domain-certs and eku are in WGLC which ends of Friday next week. These
are a dependency from other chartered items where we are ready to submit
the publication request. We will not have a view of what specifically
needs discussion on these in the meeting until the end of the WGLC, when
all the comments are in. Many of the comments made will not need
discussion in the SIP session and can be discussed on list by the
editors after the end of last call. If any comment does need SIP WG
session time, then we will give it on the above basis.

Outbound is in WGLC and has no time. We are still waiting for input to
know if it needs time - not helped by the authors dropping yet another
new version in the inbox 3 minutes before the -xx deadline when it
should have been there a month ago. Our current view is to issue a
refreshed WGLC on this following the meeting but that can change.

Location conveyance is in WGLC and has no time. Again author drops new
version in inbox 3 minutes before -xx document deadline. This document
is impacted by:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-peterson-geopriv-retransmissio
n-00.txt

Which will be discussed in the GEOPRIV group, but if followed reverses
the decision we made in the location-conveyance breakout at the last
meeting. We hope the GEOPRIV discussion does not force rediscussion in
SIP, but please bear in mind that it could do so.

RPH in responses is not chartered. 2 meetings back the WG expressed a
wish to work on this. The AD pushed back to our request to charter. As
the AD makes the decision, it is not chartered and has no milestones.
That's why we had the further discussion in the last meeting - where
again we came to no conclusions, and I assume the AD is still
unconvinced. Fundamental problem - convince the AD. Put him in a corner
somewhere in Philadelphia and kick hell out of him, but we don't need
the SIP session to watch you do that - although it may be entertaining!

Media security requirements is holding up other chartered items in both
SIP and AVT. When we considered this for inclusion, we believed there
were two items that may need agenda item. Overnight Dean seems to have
taken the time away at the moment, but I remain unconvinced that this
does not need time.

This is the media-security requirements milestones:

Sep 2007    Requirements for media keying to WGLC (Informational)  
Nov 2007    Requirements for media keying to IESG (Informational)  

Which provides the requirements for the mechanism in these charter items
in SIP.

Dec 2007    Establishment of secure media sessions using DTLS-SRTP to
WGLC (PS)  
Feb 2008    Establishment of secure media sessions using DTLS-SRTP to
IESG (PS)  

And these chartered items in AVT:

Dec 2007    Submit in band keying mechanism for SRTP draft for Proposed
Standard  

Regards

Keith

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:33 AM
> To: Dean Willis
> Cc: IETF SIP List
> Dean - I think we must be having some serious 
> miscommunications - many times in the past I have had enough 
> typos in my emails that no one could understand what I might 
> have been thinking but ....
> 
> I don't think I said that. The two things I thought I said 
> that might have been confused are:
> 
> 1) I don't think the E.164 discussion is holding up milestone 
> items in MEDIACTRL or SIMPLE
> 
> 2) I don't think a problem in some mechanism such as 4474 
> should be holding up the media security requirements draft. 
> (If I could bold requirements in the previous sentences I would)
> 
> understanding of how E.164 numbers fit into the overall SIP 
> security picture.  Sorry if I said something that made you 
> think otherwise.
> 
> 
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use 
> [email-masked] for questions on current sip

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:13:41 -0800

At Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:00:42 +0100,
> Dec 2007    Submit in band keying mechanism for SRTP draft for Proposed

For what it's worth, being neither chair nor AD, I absolutely want
media-security-requirements to finish and if there are significant
comments on the document, I 100% endorse giving it agenda time.

That said, based on my review and the lack of traffic on the list, my
opinion is that there aren't any major issues[0], so we should declare
victory and move on!

Thanks,
-Ekr

[0] The only real issues I raised in my comment were:
    - Should we remove the survey from the appendix. I'm fine
      leaving it in, since I was mostly worried about it 
      needing constant update.
    - Requirement R-RECORD. I think we could just take a 
      straw poll on this one.
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.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: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:37:09 +0100

Well one of the issues I thought needed agenda time was yours from
yesterday. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL COMMENTS
I'm concerned about the apparent lack of stability of this draft.
When this draft was originally published, it seemed to me to have two
purposes:

- To capture the BOF consensus on the important security
  properties for an RTPSEC protocol.
- To be a survey for the properties of
  the various protocols compared to those requirements.

The first purpose still seems useful to me, but is best served by having
a draft that reflects that consensus published ASAP. The second purpose
seems to me to have been sort of overtaken by events and I'm not sure
it's still valuable.

With the first purpose firmly in mind, it seems a little problematic
that this draft has changed so much in the past 6-12 months.
In particular:

- The -02 version totally renamed all the requirements
- I'm not convinced that all the requirements
  introduced in -00 have WG consensus.

Since there are other documents which need to reference these
requirements, this presents a problem for them.

------------------------------------------------------------------- 

This seemed to be a concern about scope creep, and as it is the chairs
that have probably allowed that creep, it is probably difficult for them
to direct it back to where it ought to be. This is coupled with a
concern about whether all the requirements have consensus. This seemed
to be something that we would normally deal with in the WG session to
see if this comment was representative on the rest of the group and
trying to judge how to fix the problem.

Note that we have absolutely no issue with resolving comments like this
on list - if we are able to.

Other input is welcome to resolve this, and please identify any specific
requirements that you believe do not have consensus.

Regards

Keith

> From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 2:14 PM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: Cullen Jennings; Dean Willis; IETF SIP List
> > Media security requirements is holding up other chartered items in 
> > both SIP and AVT. When we considered this for inclusion, we 
> believed 
> > there were two items that may need agenda item. Overnight 
> Dean seems 
> > to have taken the time away at the moment, but I remain unconvinced 
> > that this does not need time.
> >
> > Which provides the requirements for the mechanism in these charter 
> > items in SIP.
> > 
> For what it's worth, being neither chair nor AD, I absolutely 
> want media-security-requirements to finish and if there are 
> significant comments on the document, I 100% endorse giving 
> it agenda time.
> 
> That said, based on my review and the lack of traffic on the 
> list, my opinion is that there aren't any major issues[0], so 
> we should declare victory and move on!
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> -Ekr
>

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:17:45 -0600

Folks -

Lets try to get the Essential Corrections and -invfix- discussion off  
the agenda since there are clearly gnarlier things to talk about.

I sent in a revision to inv-fix attempting to address Jonathan's  
concern about stand-alone readability.
Jonathan - is the new format better? Can we go with this?

I sent a separate message showing what it would look like to build a  
diff against 3261 that we could put in the document. You'll
remember that on looking at it, its my opinion that going down that  
path is a very bad idea.

So far, there's only been one response on list to those messages.

Please, everyone (especially those that have expressed strong  
opinions in the past), look those over and let us know if we're
past the primary concerns, or if we still have something to work  
through that needs face time to do so.

RjS

On Feb 29, 2008, at 5:00 AM, DRAGE, Keith ((Keith)) wrote:

> both
> items

---

From: Matt Lepinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:02:11 -0500

I agree that sip-media-security-requirements needs to finished quickly, 
however, I hope that it does not require agenda time at IETF 71.

With regards to Eric's comments about scope and on particular requirements:

Personally, I don't see the appendices as an important part of this 
document, but if other working group members believe the appendices are 
valuable for historical archive, then I would not object to their 
inclusion (provided that the inclusion of the appendices does not hold 
up the rest of the document).

R-ID-BINDING:
Perhaps we could reword this as:
"The media security key management protocol must enable the media 
security keys to be cryptographically bound to an identity of the endpoint."

R-RECORDING and R-TRANSCODER:
These requirements only call for a description (somewhere) of mechanisms 
to support (respectively) recording and transcoding. Personally, I think 
these are requirements. In particular, they could be satisfied by 
specifying that in environments where recording (or transcoding) is 
required, the endpoint must share its key with the recording (or 
transcoding) device. At some point in the future we can discuss whether 
there is a better approach for satisfying one (or both) of these 
requirements (and at such a point we can discuss whether there should be 
a recommended format for transferring a key to a recording device) but 
for the time being I think the requirements are reasonable and we can 
move on.

- Matt Lepinski

DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:

>>>Dec 2007    Establishment of secure media sessions using 
>>>      
>>>
>>DTLS-SRTP to
>>    
>>
>>>WGLC (PS)  
>>>Feb 2008    Establishment of secure media sessions using 
>>>      
>>>
>>DTLS-SRTP to
>>    
>>
>>>IESG (PS)
>>>
>>>Dec 2007    Submit in band keying mechanism for SRTP draft 
>>>      
>>>
>>for Proposed
>>    
>>
>>>Standard
>>>      
>>>

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:24:05 +0100

The key issue to getting this (and a couple of others where we have
agreed "essential") into WGLC and progressing is to work out the final
format for presenting, as Robert indicates below. 

We have people saying they don't like what we have had previously, but I
don't see them addressing the issue now. In future maybe we ignore
people who rant at the mic and then don't address the issue on the list.

Keith

> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 3:18 PM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Jonathan Rosenberg
> Subject: Essential Corrections - invfix (was Re: [Sip] 
> Revised agenda for SIP -- needs more work yet)
> 
> Folks -
> 
> Lets try to get the Essential Corrections and -invfix- 
> discussion off the agenda since there are clearly gnarlier 
> things to talk about.
> 
> I sent in a revision to inv-fix attempting to address 
> Jonathan's concern about stand-alone readability.
> I sent a separate message showing what it would look like to 
> build a diff against 3261 that we could put in the document. 
> You'll remember that on looking at it, its my opinion that 
> going down that path is a very bad idea.
> 
> opinions in the past), look those over and let us know if 
> we're past the primary concerns, or if we still have 
> something to work through that needs face time to do so.
> 
> RjS
> 
> > needs discussion on these in the meeting until the end of 
> the WGLC,  
> > when

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:29:42 -0600

> Dec 2007    Submit in band keying mechanism for SRTP draft for  

It still has 30 minutes on the draft agenda, if I'm reading it  
correctly.

It's the framework draft (draft-ietf-sip-dtls-srtp-framework-01) that  
currently doesn't have agenda time. The framework depends on the  
requirements, right?

--
Dean

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:30:30 -0600

On Feb 29, 2008, at 9:17 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> Folks -
>
> Lets try to get the Essential Corrections and -invfix- discussion  
> off the agenda since there are clearly gnarlier things to talk about.
>

I have removed its time allocation from the draft agenda.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:51:34 -0800

At Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:29:42 -0600,
> currently doesn't have agenda time. The framework depends on the  

Well, sort of.

To the extent to which we're discussing new requirements that
might require modifying the technical content of the framework,
yes. I'm not aware of any such requirements.

To the extent to which we're discussing editorial changes
that affect the "requirements analysis" at the end of the
framework document (e.g., changing the name of requirements
but not their content) then there's an editorial dependency,
but I'm fine with having that analysis be against a given
version of the requirements document.

To the extent to which we're just wordsmithing the requirements
document (for instance, discussing whether to remove the appendix),
then no.

-Ekr