Subject: [Sip] WG Status, and Towards a Dublin SIP Agenda

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:18:06 -0500

We have (theoretically) four hours in Dublin.

Let's recap our milestones and see what needs to be talked about in  
dublin:

1) Jul 2007 Location Conveyance with SIP to IESG (PS)
-- as far as I know, this is stable and the retransmission issue is  
being hashed in geopriv

2) Aug 2007 Connection reuse mechanism to IESG (PS)
-- I believe this is awaiting a proto writeup and that the WG is done  
with it

3) Sep 2007 Session Policies to IESG as PS
-- I believe this is awaiting a proto writeup and that the WG is done  
with it

4) Sep 2007 Example security flows to IESG (Informational)
-- Ok, I've lost track on this one.

5) Oct 2007 New resource priority namespaces for DISA to IESG (PS)
-- I believe this is awaiting a proto writeup and that the WG is done  
with it

6) Nov 2007 Requirements for media keying to IESG (Informational)
-- I believe this is awaiting a proto writeup and that the WG is done  
with it

7 )Dec 2007 Extensions to SIP UA Profile Delivery Change Notification
Event Package for XCAP to IESG (PS)
-- I believe this is awaiting a proto writeup and that the WG is done  
with it

8) Dec 2007 Roadmap for SIP to IESG (Informational)
-- I believe this is awaiting a proto writeup and that the WG is done  
with it

9) Dec 2007 Using SAML for SIP to IESG (PS)
-- We seem to be stalled. I've heard from one person who is excitedly  
implementing, so at least there's something like a constituency.

10) Dec 2007 Extension for use in etags in conditional notification to
IESG (PS)
-- we are waiting on the author to finish some changes from WGLC, and  
have no issues to discuss.

11) Feb 2008 Identify requirements for test matrix to move SIP to
Draft Standard
-- I guess we need to talk about this.

12) Feb 2008 Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy to
IESG (PS)
-- we seem to be stuck on this one, with two conflicting  
methodologies. How can we structure a conversation to produce  
meaningful results?

13) Feb 2008 Revise charter
-- I've started this discussion on-list

14) Feb 2008 Establishment of secure media sessions using DTLS-SRTP to
IESG (PS)
-- We were last discussing the impact of RFC 4474's PSTN-interworking  
problem on this draft, and got stuck. I guess we should talk about it.

15) Apr 2008 MIME body handling in SIP to IESG (PS)
-- the latest version supposedly addressed all list comments. Where  
are we?

16) Apr 2008 Essential corrections to RFC 3261 (1st batch) to IESG (PS)
-- This is a perennial favorite for discussion, as Essential  
Corrections are essential confusing to a lot of people.

17) Jul 2008 Mechanisms for UA initiated privacy to IESG (BCP)
-- This seems to have gone forward as an individual draft.

18) Aug 2008 Guidelines for double route recording to IESG (BCP)
-- This seems to have stalled. Do we have any issues? I'm not aware of  
any

19) Sep 2008 X.509 Certificates for TLS use in SIP to IESG (PS)
-- We are awaiting a revised draft

20) Sep 2008 X.509 extended key usage for SIP to IESG (PS)
-- we are awaiting a revised draft

21) Nov 2008 Termination of early dialog prior to final response to
IESG (PS)
-- we seem to be discussing on-list.

This leaves the following probable topics:

1) Example Security Flows
2) SAML
3) Test Matrix for Draft Standard
4) Delivering Request-URI and Parameters to UAS via Proxy
5) DTLS-SRTP and RFC 4474
6) MIME Body Handling
7) Essential Corrections
8) Termination of Early Dialog Prior to Final Response

So, the floor is now open for discussing what should be on the agenda.  
Remember, chartered work (as listed above) gets first priority.

I'm also deeply concerned about #4 and #5 above and trying to figure  
out how to get traction. Anybody got an idea?

--
Dean, SIP chair for the last 9 years . . .

_______________________________________________
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: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:28:35 -0500

> -- Ok, I've lost track on this one.
In my hands waiting for some information from ekr.

> -- I guess we need to talk about this.
Agreed - I hope to have a strawman of some sort this time around.

> Corrections are essential confusing to a lot of people.
I will start another thread on this.

> 1) Example Security Flows
This needs no agenda time.
> 3) Test Matrix for Draft Standard
A short amount of time for this (if substantiated by list discussion)  
would be useful.
> 5) DTLS-SRTP and RFC 4474
Lets see how the other thread I start goes - hopefully we can actually  
do something here on list instead of eating face-time for it.
> 8) Termination of Early Dialog Prior to Final Response

I strongly agree that we should focus on chartered work, and suggest  
that only things really getting list attention take significant agenda  
time.

> Remember, chartered work (as listed above) gets first priority.

Where is the overload discussion? (I'm not suggesting agenda time  
necessarily)

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:51:28 -0500

One question and one comment below [MB].

Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Robert Sparks
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:29 AM
To: Dean Willis
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sip] WG Status, and Towards a Dublin SIP Agenda

> 2) SAML

[MB] What more needs to be done in this area? I thought the document was
fairly complete or are there outstanding issues? [/MB]

[MB] We should allow agenda time in SIPPING for an update/status from
the Overload design team. The SIPPING chairs (I)  still have an
outstanding action to define a WG deliverable for the output of the
design team. Volker will be splitting the solution out of his current
individual document and discuss this as a possible document to meet that
deliverable. Whether we progress that document or merge it back with the
solution later should be considered. But, for now, we should keep
discussion of this topic in SIPPING WG. [/MB]

> 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://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
_______________________________________________
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