Subject: [Sipping] Post-WGLC^3: draft-ietf-sipping-update-pai-07

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:30:11 -0600

Hi folks, 

Based on discussions in SIPPING WG last Friday, it was decided to do a
FINAL review of this document before progressing as it seems there are
remaining concerns and some folks felt they had not had enough time to
review. 

There are already some good discussions and proposals for modifying the
text underway:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg16466.html

ANYONE that has final comments PLEASE provide them no later than
December 15th, 2008. 

That gives folks two working weeks after Thanksgiving (US Holiday).

Depending upon the amount of changed text, we may do a very short (one
week) review prior to progressing. 

Regards,
Mary.
SIPPING WG co-chair
_______________________________________________
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: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:23:24 +0000

There are a couple of points from the meeting that need confirmation on
the list.

1. We should specify that PAI can be inserted in requests for all
methods except ACK and CANCEL. This is because ACK and CANCEL cannot be
challenged (similar reasoning for why PAI in responses will not be
specified in this draft).

My proposed new text in section 2 would be:
"This document extends RFC 3325 by allowing inclusion of the
P-Asserted-Identity header field by a UAC in the same Trust Domain as
the first proxy and allowing use of P-Asserted-Identity and
P-Preferred-Identity header fields in any request except ACK and CANCEL.
The reason for these two exceptions is that ACK and CANCEL requests
cannot be challenged for digest authentication."

Then in 4.1:
"A UAC MAY include a P-Asserted-Identity header field in a request
except ACK and CANCEL to report the identity of the user ...."
And similar changes in 4.2 and 4.4 for proxy and UAS.

2. We should not specify the sending of service URNs. The syntax already
allows for them and the draft already says that you have to be tolerant
of any scheme on receipt. No text change is required for this.

If you have any objections to these conclusions, please shout before the
deadline given by Mary below (2008-12-15).

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 25 November 2008 19:30
> To: sipping
> Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo; Elwell, John
> Subject: Post-WGLC^3: draft-ietf-sipping-update-pai-07
> 
> Hi folks, 
> 
> Based on discussions in SIPPING WG last Friday, it was 
> decided to do a FINAL review of this document before 
> progressing as it seems there are remaining concerns and some 
> folks felt they had not had enough time to review. 
> 
> There are already some good discussions and proposals for 
> modifying the text underway: 
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg16466.html>  
> 
> ANYONE that has final comments PLEASE provide them no later 
> than December 15th, 2008. 
> 
> Depending upon the amount of changed text, we may do a very 
> short (one week) review prior to progressing. 
> 
> Regards, 
> Mary. 
> SIPPING WG co-chair 
> 
>