SIPPING WG Monday 15:10-17:10 Afternoon Session II Chairs Update -------------- - Announced TISPAN adhoc - Annouced P2P SIP adhoc - Secetary for SIPPING is Oscar - Presented published RFCs and drafts with IESG or RFC editor queue - URI-list is ready but awaiting censent framework - RTCP summary, Trait based authorisation will be submitted shortly - Introduced new charter and milestones - Introduced guiding primciples for sipping - Comment was about where the dialog usage draft went since it was not in sipping new milestones. - TASK for chairs: clarify where dialog usage draft went SIP Profile drafts Dan Petrie -------------------- - drafts introduced - question raised as to why we need all this merging stuff in dataset documents when merging can be demonstrated to be trivial in most cases - comment that policy contraints are not possible to set using the current data set drafts - Comment that we want to avoid building merging engines in the clients - Agree that policy attribute is not needed in some cases Issues - XML Schema or ABNF: It doesnt really matter as long as they meet format requirements - comment: confused of what presenter meant by schema validation not required. Its not hard to add elements. - comment: extensibility problem needs to be considered - conclusion: keep XML schema - Identity Dataset Issues presented. Take issues to the list - This is not on the ietf agenda - Do we need NAT Traversal Dataset. No comment - Route set Property - one route vs. a route-set per profile. What is the order of route-sets across profiles. - need use cases where merging rules between profiles the way is proposed does not work. - No conlusion Going Forward - how to introduce new configuration params - Proposal was thatif any SIP document introduces a parameter that requires configuration, we write a config document about it. SIP Session Policy Volker Hilt ------------------ - New draft structure presented Session Policy Framework Volker Hilt -------------------------- - Merge session dependant and session independant policy drafts. Is that a WG item? Chair says yes. Event Package for session policy Volker Hilt -------------------------------- - draft presented Issues - Do we need this? - Format for policy decisions - Security model - Comment: what to do when SDP in not valid or an attribute that the remote end does not understand Concent Framework Gonzalo Camarillo ------------------ - WGLCing the requirements currently - Call flow presented - Permission document format presented - Do we need . Use case was that someone wants to receive voice calls but not IMs. Thats why this is useful - question: do we allow exceptions. Jonathan proposes no we dont. Transcoding Gonzalo Camarillo ------------------ Issues - Is there a need for the UAC to provide further information to the transcoder about codec support - Question, do trascoders transcode between all supported codecs? - does Consent work need to be applied here? - take it to the list IPv6 Transition in SIP V Gurbani ---------------------- - Updates presented Issue - do we use TURN to obtain v4 or v6 addresses? - this will be presented in BEHAVE WG draft-gurbani-sipping-ipv6-sip-01 V Gurbani ---------------------------------- - Torture test needs review - Comment: Section on network APIs does not need to be there. Agreed to remove it. - Comment: it has fairly high level but not complete view of general v6 transition strategy not related to sip and it was toture tests. Why both in this draft? Agreement to just have torture tests in the draft and remove the general transition stuff - WG item? we have a lot of work in sipping. No decision was made. One objection was made due to the overload of the working group. Definately needed, but only adopt it later. SBC Functions Jani Hautakorpi --------------- - draft idea presented - Comment: that those sip unfriendly functions are not just implemented in SBCs, but also in endpoints - Comment: We need requirements document that specifies what SBCs currently do, not what they break. - Cullen disagrees that there are concreate examples from each function - Chair comment: need to define the motivation for this document Max-Forwards problem/solution Robert Sparks --------------------- - problem statement presented - Return loop detection had backing by a few - disallowing abritrary contacts in registartion was also favoured by some - we have consensus to tackle this problem Transcoding Error Cases Tae-Gyu Kang ----------------------- - problem presented - Comment: problem is either transcoder does not support transcoding to codec supported at far end.