Subject: [Sip] Further revised SIP agenda

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 00:35:05 -0600

The agenda for SIP at IETF 71 continues to evolve.

I've updated the agenda at:

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

and also uploaded a copy to the IETF proceedings site, wherever that  
might be.

I'm also fairly certain I missed somebody's comments on an earlier  
version, so if it looks like you told me something and I didn't get it  
right, please tell me again. Some days I'm not too bright. Okay, most  
days.

We're hoping to have a special-topic session Monday night on the  
"extension model" conundrum, with discussion of how we got to where we  
are, the "litmus test" model for figuring out what sort of extension  
approach to use given a set of requirements, and further discussion of  
the INFO-package model. This session will, if it happens as I  
understand it, operate under auspices of the SIPPING working group.

This leaves one big furball that we need to figure out how to tackle:  
the E.164/identity discussion. We've more than a half-dozen drafts on  
the topic, and only about a half-hour to spend on the topic. Anybody  
have a good idea on how to organize this into a useful discussion?

Should we have somebody present a background discussion on the problem  
so that we're all up to date? Leap into potential solutions/ 
workarounds? Or perhaps we should collaborate in primal scream therapy  
by shouting at each other at the top of our voices?

Please come back with ideas.

For those of you who REALLY want this in email, here's the set of  
topics we currently proposing giving time to:

Session Policies
Volker Hilt
draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-02
15 min

Requirements for Media Security
Dan Wing
draft-ietf-sip-media-security-requirements-03
draft-fischer-sip-e2e-sec-media-00
draft-wing-sip-identity-media-02
30 min

UA initiated privacy
Mayumi Munakata
draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-02
20 min

X.509 Certificates for TLS
Vijay Gurbani, Scott Lawrence
draft-ietf-sip-domain-certs-00
15 min

X.509 Extended Key Usage
Vijay Gurbani Scott Lawrence
draft-ietf-sip-eku-01
15 min

Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
Christer Holmberg
draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01
draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-02
draft-rosenberg-sipping-siptrunk-00
30 min

The Phone Number/Identity Dichotomy
Most of the Working Group
draft-rosenberg-sip-rfc4474-concerns-00
draft-schwartz-sip-e164-ownership-01
draft-darilion-sip-e164-enum-00
draft-kaplan-sip-uris-change-00
draft-kaplan-sip-baiting-attack-02
draft-elwell-sip-e164-problem-statement-00
draft-wing-sip-e164-rrc-01
35 min

--
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: "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:12:55 -0600

Dean,

I agree with the topics to which you have already allotted time to, but
Mutual Authentication With Proxies, Identity-Based Authentication in
SIP, and RPH in Responses should be discussed because these work items
are being discussed in other forums. I see that none of these are on the
SIP charter, so the question is, if not SIP where best to discuss them.

Your guidance would be appreciated.

Martin 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Dean Willis
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 1:35 AM
To: IETF SIP List
Cc: Cullen Jennings
Subject: [Sip] Further revised SIP agenda

Session Policies
Volker Hilt

UA initiated privacy
Mayumi Munakata

X.509 Extended Key Usage

--
Dean

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 13:59:53 -0600

> Your guidance would be appreciated.

Well, they aren't SIP working group charter items, so that does push  
them down the priority list. They're also not gating other SIP charter  
items, which pushes them further.

We tried to get the proxy-auth onto that list and really got blocked  
by the ADs, mostly Jon. IBA is my own baby -- it's my student who is  
pushing this research, but the work is a little young and I'm hoping  
he'll be able to socialize this some with other IETFers this week and  
build some consensus.  I have hopes it will catch on, but EKR is  
definitey stonewalling, perhaps for good reason as the case for IBA  
hasn't really been made yet.

RPH in responses was shot down so far by consensus of the working  
group. Nobody has explained it adequately to build any consensus. If  
you want to move that one along, work with the author to make the  
draft make sense from a SIP perspective. For example, what does an RPH  
in a response mean? Do proxies treat responses with RPH Differently  
from responses that don't have it? If so, how do they do this, and  
what is the impact on the load model?

---

From: "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:06:25 -0600

Dean,

Thanks for your prompt response. Please introduce me to your student.

RPH in responses is important, and I think James's explanation desires a
day in the sun. And YES, all network elements, including proxies need to
give priority and mark packets so that they get priority treatment in
the layer 3 routers, and the associated access networks (with the
understanding that not all will honor, but...[and if some one needs to
understand the "but", please see me]. The idea here is to give these
call/sessions the highest probability of getting thru when shit really
hits the fan. And to be clear, this is for disasters (earth quakes,
hurricanes, human made crap, etc...).

Lastly, the topic of mutual authentication between networks is really
needed, so I propose interested parties respond to Dean and me, and we
can arrange a Philly beer talk.

Martin

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:59:40 -0600

At 01:59 PM 3/8/2008, Dean Willis wrote:
>group.

No, it wasn't. There were two IDs on RP in responses.  It was Janet's 
ID that was shot down (in Vancouver). Mine was not (which wasn't 
presented in Vancouver).  I believe I addressed all Janet's proposal 
by explicitly not allowing her proposed use-case (what Keith calls 
"use-case#2") to be addressed with the solution in my ID.  I say that 
in the ID, and I said that on the list.  A few folks stated support 
for this ID on the list once the latest version posted.  It's hard to 
move anything forward, to explain this situation, without being 
allowed to speak about it to the group.

>Nobody has explained it adequately to build any consensus. If
>in a response mean?

I cover this

>Do proxies treat responses with RPH Differently
>from responses that don't have it?

I cover this

>If so, how do they do this, and what is the impact on the load model?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the load model", since we 
aren't talking about additional messages within a transaction, we're 
only talking about the one response to a request that has already 
been processed, accepted and transmitted towards the UAS.  Can you 
explain your question more?

James

---

From: "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 18:09:46 -0600

For these reasons it should be on the agenda.... Ah...maybe more time is
needed? 

Those that put themselves in position to lead should LEAD.. understand

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 7:00 PM
To: Dean Willis; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
Cc: IETF SIP List; Cullen Jennings
Subject: Re: [Sip] Further revised SIP agenda

I cover this

I cover this

James

---

From: "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 18:31:59 -0600

The leadership comment is not to Dean/Keith, but to the AD's and
IE..whatever you think you are 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 7:10 PM
To: James M. Polk; Dean Willis
Cc: IETF SIP List; Cullen Jennings
Subject: Re: [Sip] Further revised SIP agenda

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 7:00 PM
To: Dean Willis; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
Cc: IETF SIP List; Cullen Jennings
Subject: Re: [Sip] Further revised SIP agenda

I cover this

I cover this

James

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:53:19 -0500

> IE..whatever you think you are

So the WG Chairs try and sort out the relative priorities of the stuff  
for the agenda - keep in mind they have a small faction of the time  
Dean wishes they had for SIP. If you think we should remove time from  
some other WG and add it to SIP,  let me know. Since this seems like  
primarily a topic of agenda time, let me know if some other sort of  
topic needs some leadership.

---

From: "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 07:32:02 -0500

Cullen,

Thanks,

Martin