Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt
Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 17:45 UTC
Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F41621E8135 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:45:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.785
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.785 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eSXVNjnSJLPh for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:45:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610FA21F9EB6 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:44:56 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-5b-52792e97846b
Received: from ESESSHC021.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 00.38.27941.79E29725; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:44:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.126.80] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:44:54 +0100
Message-ID: <52792E92.8010208@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:44:50 -0800
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
References: <em95fbb79f-b66d-468c-9825-fbcf0cf971f2@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <em95fbb79f-b66d-468c-9825-fbcf0cf971f2@sydney>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje50vcogg+cHVC0OTgq22HZc0OLq q88sFk8bzzJanL+wgcmB1aP12V5Wj+MrdrJ7LFnyk8mjYd9Rdo8vlz+zBbBGcdmkpOZklqUW 6dslcGW0TP3BVrBKu+Jo+z7WBsa1Sl2MnBwSAiYSn36dYYewxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEkcIRRYsPF uewQzmpGiav7zrCAVPEKaEs8/rEKrINFQEViSvsOVhCbTcBCYsut+2A1ogJREhu2X4CqF5Q4 OfMJkM3BISKgIXHqezDITGaBLiaJfxsvMYPUCAv4SCw4uxhsjpCAtcTXyd/A4pwCNhITGvtZ IK6TlNjyoh1sL7OApkTr9t9QtrzE9rdzmCF6tSWWP2thmcAoNAvJ6llIWmYhaVnAyLyKkaM4 tTgpN93IYBMjMMwPbvltsYPx8l+bQ4zSHCxK4rwf3zoHCQmkJ5akZqemFqQWxReV5qQWH2Jk 4uCUamA8lnHp7anXr3wTDq7U39q16aq6yQNJg1/pWaeXLfXZwvTn45TqZ7vu3wg6/v3V+d1f WdNKs/6G1sZnHtw41+bGXodGy95F2r+WH9fcu9Dzs0qY9JuFKsVmOvO3aU9V7HBTXeOcacni oWGQeNWL+3vkjZ2aUtO4My/axO6WZ9p33DJrDSPPb7MDSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAPYgGIkECAAA=
Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, "draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:45:56 -0000
Hi Elwyn, Paul has just revised the draft in order to address your comments (he sent a separate email about it). Could you please let us know whether the new revision of the draft can be progressed at this point? Thanks, Gonzalo On 26/09/2013 2:00 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote: > If a B2BUA failed to pass a Session-ID, that's definitely a problem if > that same device claims to support INSIPID. I'm not sure we need a > requirement for that, though, since being selective or inconsistent > would violate REQ3. > > Paul > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> > To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>; "Elwyn Davies" > <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> > Cc: "General Area Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>; > "draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts.all@tools.ietf.org" > <draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts.all@tools.ietf.org> > Sent: 9/26/2013 5:42:10 AM > Subject: RE: Gen-art LC review of > draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt >> I don't know whether it is worth mentioning that while the action of >> the existing B2BUAs is not determinate, we do expect it to be >> consistent, i.e. it would not pass on the header field on one request, >> and fail to pass it on on another. Therefore session identifiers in >> that have been created at the start of a dialog based on being passed >> through should continue to work for the rest of the dialog, or other >> related dialogs. >> >> Regards >> >> Keith >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] >>> Sent: 26 September 2013 04:04 >>> To: Elwyn Davies >>> Cc: General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-insipid-session-id- >>> reqts.all@tools.ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts- >>> 08.txt >>> >>> Elwyn, >>> >>> Please see my comments below: >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Elwyn Davies" <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> >>> To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> >>> Cc: "General Area Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>; >>> draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts.all@tools.ietf.org >>> Sent: 9/25/2013 6:47:50 PM >>> Subject: Re: Gen-art LC review of >>> draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt >>> >Hi, Paul. >>> >[Resend to all addressees] >>> > >>> >We seem to be converging... >>> > >>> >On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 22:22 +0000, Paul E. Jones wrote: >>> >> Elwyn, >>> >> >>> >> Comments below: >>> >> >>> >> > >Minor issues: >>> >> >> >s4.3: I am not clear whether there needs to be any special >>> >> >> >consideration >>> >> >> >if the B2BUA doesn't support Session-ID. There could be a number >>> >of >>> >> >> >other cases to consider. In particular whether the B2BUA would >>> >> >>forward >>> >> >> >the Session-ID if it didn't understand it. Does this also affect >>> >> >> >SBCs? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> There will be special considerations for B2BUAs. REQ3 requires >>> >B2BUAs >>> >> >> to pass it unchanged. Of course, there is the possibility that >>> >> >>existing >>> >> >> devices will not; we cannot change that. However, devices >>> >compliant >>> >> >> with the spec should. The intent is that the solution document >>> >will >>> >> >> spell out what B2BUAs should do when they receive a Session-ID >>> >and >>> >> >>when >>> >> >> they do not. This will be fully covered in the solution >>> >specification >>> >> >> currently being progressed. >>> >> >Right.. Not being a deep SIP expert, I was not sure if a legacy >>> >>B2BUA >>> >> >would pass through a Session-ID added by a non-legacy UA (say, A) >>> >when >>> >> >it created the call to B, which might or might not be legacy. If it >>> >> >didn't, does it matter or does it give rise to any requirements? >>> >> >Presumably the legacy B2BUA would reflect the Session-ID - or if >>> not >>> >A >>> >> >shouldn't complain if it doesn't come back >>> >> >>> >> What a deployed SBC will do varies. Some might pass the header value >>> >> through and some might not. We already know that some definitely >>> >would >>> >> not. >>> >OK.. that is what I suspected would be the case. >>> > >>> >It doesn't answer the question as to whether the SBC would always >>> >reflect the SID back to A, and if it didn't might A get upset. And >>> >hence is it a requirement that A should bite its lip rather than >>> >complaining if the SID doesn't come back? >>> >>> What the group has requested is that INSIPID-aware SBCs would pass any >>> Session-ID header value through unmodified. However, aside from passing >>> it through, no other action is required of SBCs. >>> >>> We will, however, allow an SBC to fabricate a value on behalf of a User >>> Agent that is not an INSIPID User Agent. The reason for this is to >>> allow inspection of call logs throughout a domain, for example. Imagine >>> a service provider edge where a customer's phone does not generate a >>> Session-ID, but the service provider wants one for use inside their >>> network. >>> >>> In any case, the Session-ID is intended to be end-to-end. It originates >>> at each user agent and SBCs (or B2BUAs in general) just mindlessly >>> passing it along. If an endpoint does not receive it (or if it does not >>> traverse all nodes in the path), it only means we lose the ability >>> to do >>> diagnostics, logging, signaling correlation, etc. using that value. >>> >>> Paul >> > >
- [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid… Elwyn Davies
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ins… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ins… Elwyn Davies
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ins… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ins… Elwyn Davies
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ins… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ins… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ins… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ins… Gonzalo Camarillo