Subject: [Sipping] Requirements for vertical handover of multimedia sessions using SIP

From: "Saverio Niccolini" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:53:09 +0200

Dear all,

following the comments we received in May about SIP handover drafts
we updated the requirements draft in a joint effort with other authors
of another handover solution draft, you can see the result here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-niccolini-sipping-siphandover-04

We think we have addressed some of the unclear points that were 
questioned by Paul, Salvatore, Mary and John, i.e.:

-- Handling bicasted media stream (Issue in the RTP field) raised by Paul:
This issue should stay outside the scope of SIP/SIPPING.
So, it would not be necessary to include this issue in the requirement draft

-- non-RTP media issues
This issue was included as one of the requirements in the requirement draft

-- difference from session-mobility ID
addressed in section 5

-- the meaning of handling mobility at the app layer, not IP layer
Middle box (SBC) problem
this is an issue that needs to be solved when discussing the technical
solution, first of all we would like to see the set of requirements agreed

Can you please let us know if there is something more we should address
about this requirements draft, and if you think now it is reasonable enough
to get discussed in a SIPPING session?

Thanks a lot in advance,
Saverio

============================================================
Dr. Saverio Niccolini
Manager, Real-Time Communications Group
NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division	
Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg
Tel.     +49 (0)6221 4342-118
Fax:     +49 (0)6221 4342-155
e-mail:  [email-masked] <-- !!! NEW ADDRESS !!!
============================================================
NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria
Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://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: Haruki Izumikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:25:51 +0900

Dear all,

Thank you for all the comments, about SIP mobility, you gave in this ML 
last month. I think it would be time to restart discussion on this topic 
in the SIPPING WG. The Saverio's requirements draft can be a baseline 
document for further discussion.
I would be happy to hear any frank comments.

Best regards,

Haruki

-- 
Haruki Izumikawa
KDDI R&D Laboratories

---

From: Ashutosh Dutta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:34:07 -0400

Hi Haruki, Saverio,
                    I could not attend your presentation on SIP terminal 
mobility requirement, but I was looking at the notes that were sent to 
sipping mailing group. Henning is right on the history of SIP-based 
terminal mobility within IETF. Subsequent to Henning's paper on Terminal 
Mobility that was first published in ACM WOWMOM in 1999, few of us 
including Henning wrote SIP-based mobility drafts (one of them being a 
requirement draft) and brought these to SIPPING WG.

For your reference, these drafts are archived in the following location.
http://www.argreenhouse.com/SIP-mobile/Reference.html

We also had a BARBOF on SIP mobility during IETF 50 in Minneapolis. 
However, subsequent to that we did not garner enough interest at that 
time (2001) within IETF SIPPING WG as there were other priority items. 
However, as I have mentioned earlier, there have been numerous work on 
Terminal Mobility in the recent years and there is increasingly more 
interest in this area by the carriers and service providers. Many of us 
still continue to work around SIP-based terminal mobility area that 
could be useful to different kinds of deployment scenarios involving 
single interface, multiple interface, NAT, inter-domain handoff etc.

It would be good to see some clear instruction from the SIPPING WG about 
the direction of the work related to SIP terminal mobility. I am sure 
there is a task force including me who will be willing to contribute to 
this effort going forward.

Regards
Ashutosh