Subject: [Sipping] FW: Best Current Practices for NAT Traversal for SIP

From: "Chris Boulton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:34:22 +0100

[resent due to incorrect SIPPING address] 

Hi Henry, et al,

Some comments in-line.

Best Regards,

Chris.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 14 June 2005 14:36
To: [email-masked]; Chris Boulton
Cc: 'Barry Andrews'; Michael Doyle; 'Robert Sparks';
[email-masked]
Subject: Best Current Practices for NAT Traversal for SIP

Several colleagues and I would like to urge you on behalf of many in our
industry to finish the critical Internet Draft for the SIP community:
"Best
Current Practices for NAT Traversal for SIP".

This is an excellent document, but as yet not finished.

The "Best Current Practices for NAT Traversal for SIP" is without doubt
in
our minds the most critical of all the SIP work done at present in the
various related IETF working groups, since without a NAT traversal
standard,
SIP based communications simply cannot be guaranteed to happen in the
first
place. Needless to say that two ICE enabled UAs need to be interoperable
in
a standard and auditable way, so as to be tested for example in SIPit.

[Chris Boulton] Agreed.

A response to a previous enquiry was that ICE is just being fixed, after
which this I-D will be finished as well. Can you share what the status
of
both I-Ds is at present and what we will have at the 63 IETF?

[Chris Boulton] Current status is that Gonzalo currently has the editors
token as he is inserting some text in the document which deals with IPV6
inter-working.  I believe he will be returning this back to me soon -
although there were issues with the current TURN draft.  Gonzalo?  

Once I have received the draft - I intend updating based on the latest
ICE specification.  This again will depend on the production of the
latest version of ICE in time for me to complete my updates.  I'm not
sure what plans Jonathan has for the next release of ICE?

So in conclusion, the current plan is for a new version of the draft to
be submitted in time for IETF 63.

Regards,

Chris.

Sorry for this note, but looking at the 70+ RFCs on SIP and the several
hundreds of I-D in the pipeline, I thought it is a good idea to share
the
priorities with the SIPPING WG and see what other think as well.

Thanks, Henry  

Henry Sinnreich
CTO
pulver.com
115 Broadhollow Rd
Suite 225
Melville, NY 11747
USA

Information contained in this e-mail and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee only, and may contain confidential information of Ubiquity Software Corporation.  All unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the addressee, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this email.  Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing signed by an officer of Ubiquity Software Corporation, nothing in this communication shall be deemed to be legally binding.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.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: Arjun Roychowdhury <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:08:14 -0400

Just curious - a couple of weeks ago, Jonathan posted a question in
the MMUSIC list about feedback on ICE (and the fact that the draft may
need to add a statutory warning of 'Intense Headaches possible')

Is there any work going on now to re-look at ICE and possibly simplify
it ? And if so, will this draft wait for such changes ?

I agree completing this draft would be very critical.

regds
arjun

-- 
Arjun Roychowdhury

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:17:06 -0400

I am planning to issue a revised ICE draft that is in fact simplified, 
including removal of the meta-protocol aspects of this. In as much as 
the nat-scenarios document is a use cases document, if it has any ICE 
details it needs to wait for ICE.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:25:20 -0500

In order to do a complete job, besides ICE, 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jennings-sipping-outbound-01.txt 

needs also to get finished. Can the authors share the status of this work?

Should ICE and SIP Conventions for UAs with Outbound Only Connections be an
agenda item for the SIPPING WG session?

Thanks, Henry

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:09:19 +0300

Hi Henry,

regarding the SIPPING agenda, we can discuss SIPPING stuff... but ICE is 
an MMUSIC draft which will be discussed in MMUSIC... and given how busy 
SIPPING meetings usually are, I would say this is a good thing.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

-- 
Gonzalo Camarillo         Phone :  +358  9 299 33 71
Oy L M Ericsson Ab        Mobile:  +358 40 702 35 35
Telecom R&D               Fax   :  +358  9 299 30 52
FIN-02420 Jorvas          Email :  [email-masked]
Finland                   http://www.hut.fi/~gonzalo