Re: [dispatch] Draft new version: draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates-06 [was: Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates as AD sponsored]
Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Sun, 15 May 2016 19:15 UTC
Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09ED12D09E for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 May 2016 12:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tGyG39Q21DYt for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 May 2016 12:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5585812B008 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 May 2016 12:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79486d0000069d0-b0-5738cad902c3
Received: from ESESSHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.39]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 20.6F.27088.9DAC8375; Sun, 15 May 2016 21:15:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.152]) by ESESSHC007.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Sun, 15 May 2016 21:15:37 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>, "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Draft new version: draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates-06 [was: Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates as AD sponsored]
Thread-Index: AQHRrU5Ijw7HYDK7hkOWILVzT9X5r5+6YanA
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:15:36 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37FBE7AB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37F866CB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <91c371c2-1743-f762-47af-35b0e62291e3@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <91c371c2-1743-f762-47af-35b0e62291e3@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.149]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7uu7NUxbhBr+X6lvs+buI3WLppAWs Fg2dK1kdmD2WLPnJ5DFr5xOWAKYoLpuU1JzMstQifbsEroxjq40KznlX3Jyr2sB4xbOLkZND QsBEYsm1P8wQtpjEhXvr2boYuTiEBI4wSvzed4cFwlnCKHHl43ymLkYODjYBC4nuf9ogDSIC pRJvTz1mBakRFpjOKDHl9DNmEEdEYAZQ994d7BBVRhLP1s4Cs1kEVCVa75xhBLF5BXwltnbf YILY0MQocezOQTaQDZwC9hLHG41BahiBTvp+ag0TiM0sIC5x68l8JohTBSSW7DkPdbaoxMvH /1ghbCWJtYe3s4CMYRbQlFi/Sx+iVVFiSvdDdoi1ghInZz5hmcAoOgvJ1FkIHbOQdMxC0rGA kWUVo2hxanFSbrqRkV5qUWZycXF+nl5easkmRmC0HNzy22AH48vnjocYBTgYlXh4FW6Yhwux JpYVV+YeYpTgYFYS4WU6ZBEuxJuSWFmVWpQfX1Sak1p8iFGag0VJnNf/pWK4kEB6Yklqdmpq QWoRTJaJg1OqgdHkyFu7L9dmae8tEeu4KrH4cdhChnSRaW8qDn/6cbb58cJDXNvfrfOSDr68 v5vrOxu7/633KebyC7k0T7VpRP9sOHksMqd0lf9hvvO70rv/xN9R1Vngovqwedcno7ubHVex /Or8XXRMPUPm6P5ptp/UVvIoOjFIRwrdvsNwNHbxKs8uXhbnizJKLMUZiYZazEXFiQCwA+ws kgIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/q6JWJfzNz4fbM8rHcDKfgN6XeeU>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Draft new version: draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates-06 [was: Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates as AD sponsored]
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:15:42 -0000
Thanks! :) Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@nostrum.com] Sent: 13 May 2016 22:33 To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; A. Jean Mahoney <mahoney@nostrum.com>; dispatch@ietf.org Subject: Re: Draft new version: draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates-06 [was: Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates as AD sponsored] The -06 version addresses the only blocking concerns that I had. From an expert review perspective, I approve its publication. /a On 4/27/16 10:57, Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi, > > Based on Adam's comments, I've submitted a new version (-06) of draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates. > > Regards, > > Christer > > -----Original Message----- > From: dispatch [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Christer Holmberg > Sent: 27 April 2016 18:07 > To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; A. Jean Mahoney > <mahoney@nostrum.com>; dispatch@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dispatch] Progressing > draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates as AD sponsored > > Hi, > >> Sure -- my suggestion was one for clarification. If 3GPP does, in >> fact, intend to allow the header field in mid-dialog messages, then >> my comment doesn't apply. >> >> But if they *do* intend to allow the field mid-dialog, I'm curious >> about why it's forbidden in the current list of methods: save for >> some obscure corner cases, all of the methods called out by name are >> sent mid-dialog, and none of the un-named methods are. > OPTIONS, BYE, REFER (with RFC7615) and re-INVITE can be sent in-dialog. > > I can't give an answer here and now why the list looks like it does, > but this is how it's specified in 3GPP :) > >> Either way, it's just a suggestion. The hard block here is in the ACK >> handling that I pointed out. > Based on your comments, the new text would now say: > > "The P-Associated-URI header field can appear in SIP REGISTER > 2xx responses. The P-Called-Party-ID header field can appear in > SIP INVITE, OPTIONS, PUBLISH, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, and MESSAGE methods. > The P-Visited-Network-ID header field can appear in all SIP methods > except ACK, BYE, CANCEL, NOTIFY, PRACK, INFO and UPDATE. The > P-Access-Network-Info header field can appear in all SIP methods > and non-100 responses, except in CANCEL methods, CANCEL responses > and ACK methods triggered by non-2xx responses. The P-Charging-Vector > header field can appear in all SIP methods and non-100 responses, > except in CANCEL methods, CANCEL responses and ACK methods triggered > by non-2xx responses. The P-Charging-Function-Addresses header field > can appear in all SIP methods and non-100 responses, except in ACK > and CANCEL methods and CANCEL responses." > > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > > > > >> /a >> >> On 4/27/16 08:01, Christer Holmberg wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> One more thing: >>> >>> I guess we could also change ³all responses² to ³all non-100 >>> responses², as 100 responses are also hop-to-hop (similar to ACKs >>> triggered by non-2xx responses). >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Christer >>> >>> >>> On 25/04/16 14:30, "Christer Holmberg" >>> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Adam, >>>> >>>> Are you ok with my suggested way forward? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Christer >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 21/04/16 22:43, "Christer Holmberg" >>>> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Adam, >>>>> >>>>> .... >>>>> >>>>>>> One additional review note that does not affect my expert review >>>>>>> (treat it as a last-call comment): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Add statement that the P-Visited-Network-ID header field >>>>>>> cannot >>>>>>> appear in the SIP NOTIFY, PRACK, INFO and UPDATE methods. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to me that it would be significantly more future proof >>>>>>> to phase this as "...cannot appear in mid-dialog requests," as >>>>>>> that appears to be the intention. The revised text then becomes >>>>>>> something >>>>>>> like: "The P-Visited-Network-ID header field can appear in all >>>>>>> SIP methods except ACK and CANCEL; however, it cannot be sent >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> any mid-dialog requests." >>>>>> Seems reasonable, but I'll verify with my 3GPP delegates. >>>>> I had a closer look at this, and I don't think we can forbid usage >>>>> in all mid-dialog requests. >>>>> >>>>> For example, the header field is allowed in OPTIONS, that can be >>>>> sent in-dialog. >>>>> >>>>> Also, the header field is allowed in REFER, and RFC 7614 defines a >>>>> mechanism that allows in-dialog REFERs. >>>>> >>>>> re-INVITE is also tricky. The header field is generally allowed in >>>>> INVITE requests, but there is no text explicitly disallowing it >>>>> in re-INVITEs. >>>>> >>>>> Whether it makes sense to include the header field in the methods >>>>> above I don't know (3GPP does allow them), but as the purpose is >>>>> only to align >>>>> 7315 with 3455 I'd suggest we keep the text as it is. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Christer >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 3/7/16 14:08, A. Jean Mahoney wrote: >>>>> Since this draft updates RFC 7315, which required expert review of >>>>> its header fields, Adam Roach will be conducting an expert review >>>>> of this draft according to the guidance given in RFC 5727. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Jean >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 3/7/16 9:33 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi folks, >>>>> >>>>> This document has been proposed to be progressed as AD sponsored: >>>>> >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-u >>>>> pd >>>>> ate >>>>> s/ >>>>> The document has been carefully reviewed and it is now ready to >>>>> move forward - Jean Mahoney is the shepherd. >>>>> >>>>> I don't anticipate anyone would have concerns about this decision, >>>>> given that's how RFC 7315 was progressed and this update has >>>>> actually been much more carefully reviewed. However, f anyone >>>>> has any final comments, please post no later than Friday, March >>>>> 11th, 2016. Note, that you will also still have IETF LC to >>>>> provide any comments. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Mary. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> dispatch mailing list >>>>> dispatch@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> dispatch mailing list >>>>> dispatch@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> dispatch mailing list >>>>> dispatch@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch > _______________________________________________ > dispatch mailing list > dispatch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
- [dispatch] Draft new version: draft-holmberg-disp… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [dispatch] Draft new version: draft-holmberg-… Adam Roach
- Re: [dispatch] Draft new version: draft-holmberg-… Christer Holmberg