Draft Minutes, SIP Working Group, IETF 56
edited by Dean Willis
The SIP Working Group met at IETF
56 on Monday, March 17, 1300-1500, in room Continental 6.
The posted agenda:
1300 Agenda Bash
1305 Status -- Chairs
1315 Non-Invite Transaction Issues, Robert Sparks
draft-sparks-sip-noninvite-00.txt
1330 Referred-By Changes and Open Issues, Robert Sparks
draft-ietf-sip-referredby-01.txt
1340 Resource Priority, Henning Schulzrinne
draft-polk-sip-resource-02.txt
1355 Caller Preferences, Jonathan Rosenberg
draft-ietf-sip-callerprefs-08.txt
1410 Congestion Safety, Dean Willis, Hisham Khartabil
draft-ietf-sip-congestsafe-01.txt
draft-khartabil-sip-congestionsafe-ci-02.txt
1430 Authenticated ID Bodies, Jon Peterson
draft-ietf-sip-authid-body-01.txt
1445 SIPit report on S/MIME and TLS, Rohan Mahy
1455 General Discussion
1500 Break
Scribe: Ramu (notes not receivedby chairs)
Chart Room Coordinator: Not recorded
Topic: Non-invite transactions, Robert Sparks.
The slides presented are included in the proceedings.
Poll == who as read and understands the draft, app. 20%. Discusssion:
Principle problem is the race condition of 64*T1 built into the
protocol. Given non-zero latency, the UAS side has an offset on this
time, so the client may time out before the server completes. Now we
just try and "complete as soon as possible" giving response codes like
408 that make no sense -- by the time it gets back to the UAC, the UAC
is assured of having timed out, creating a 408 storm. Other problems
exist with intermediary timeouts and with forking convergence.
Two solutions offered: A and B. Rohan argues against proposal B,
preferring the subscribe/notify style of seperate transactions. Point:
What if values of T1 are different? Discussion: If UAS and UAC have
different values of T1, it's all broken anyhow. Extended discussion
follows. Two problems: the infrequent 1 in 10,000 events, and the
problem that the 200 has to be emitted soon enough to have a high
probability to make it back to the UAC before the 408s. Most troubling
is when the UAS thinks the situation is 200ok, but the UAC has a
different view (which can happen with non-invite forking). Point that we
should lift the constraint on interoperability with existing proxies.
Suggestion we adhoc during this meeting for consensus -- group to email
Robert for gathering. Note: a detailed adhoc on this topic was
held later and the minutes seperately included in the proceeedings.
Topic: Referred-by, Robert Sparks
The slides presented are included in the proceedings.
Complaint: nobody is giving feedback. Are people mostly happy and just
waiting on some of the blocking work to complete? A chairs asks for
volunteers to provide feedback: Brian Rosen, Mary Barnes, Alan Johnston,
Pekka Pessi all volunteer.
Issue: Use of Call-ID seems to be required in auth-ID-body. Is it a
leak? Should we put garbage in, change the AID body format, or what? Jon
Peterson reports that the newest AIB draft relieves this requirement.
Issue: Referred identity binding between REFER and INVITE. Can a
referee assert a different identity on the generated INVITE than was
referenced in the REFER? Can humans make the distinction? No resolution
of this issue in this meeting, but it seems to relate to the URI Leasing
work ongoing in SIPPING.
Topic: Resource-Priority, Henning Schulzrinne
The slides presented included in the proceedings.
Goal: Higher priority of emergency call completion during service
disruption of civil emergency, especially in interworking with PSTN.
Requirements are establised in RFC3487. List discussion reviewd,
best option a new header. Discussion about whether it is "good" to have
proxies understand this. Consensus: Work on this problem, starting from
this draft as a baseline, but address additional opinions and
requirements as raised in the WG process.
Topic: Caller Preferences, Jonathan Rosenberg
The slides presented are included in the proceedings.
Issue: Needs a thorough review of the current draft, which seems pretty
much "done".
Volunteers to review -- Robert Sparks, Mary Barnes, Pekka Pessi,
Bob Penfield, Cullen Jennings. The plan is to review, feed back,
revise, go to 2 week WGLC.
Topic: Congestion Safety, Dean Willis and Hisham Khartabil
Presentation by Dean Willis. Slides presented included in the
proceedings.
General poll indicates that after reading the draft, nobody understands
how it works. People seem to have the vague feeling that the topic is
important but are not cognizant of the implications. Suggestion made
that "congestion safe" is a misnomer, as nothing is "safe". No
consensus reported.
Presentation by Hisham Khartabil. Slides presented included in
proceedings.
One point made from audience is that implementors do not see immediate
value. Proposed by one speaker that we should consider response-CI as a
possible alternate mechanism in primary work. No consensus reported.
Topic: Auth-ID Issues, Jon Peterson
Slides presented are included in the proceedings.
The only new "SIP" function is the new 400-response code. Other
functions are non-normative. No poll for consensus recorded.
Meeting concluded at 1500.