Re: [Insipid] WG Review: INtermediary-safe SIP session ID (insipid)

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

the proposed milestones can be found on the slides Keith mentioned in
his email below. I copy them below for your convenience:

Dec 2012 Requirements and use cases for new identifier sent to IESG
(as informational)

Feb 2013 Specification of the new identifier sent to the IESG (PS)

Dec 2013 Requirements for marking SIP sessions for logging to IESG
(Informational)

Mar 2014 Protocol for marking SIP sessions for logging to IESG
(Proposed standard

Cheers,

Gonzalo


On 29/09/2013 12:27 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Hi Gonzalo, 
> 
> I understand that the process of review and approval of the milestones is different, but at such point in time when the charter is sent for external review I think it would be good to synchronize the two processed. It does not make sense to me to review a charter whose milestones are in the past, obviously not in synch with the rest of the text. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo
>> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 11:35 AM
>> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>> Cc: James Polk; [e-mail]; 'Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)'
>> Subject: Re: [Insipid] WG Review: INtermediary-safe SIP session ID
>> (insipid)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> with respect to the milestones, the review of charters follows a
>> different review process than the milestones, which can be easily
>> updated by the chairs and the responsible AD without going through IETF,
>> IESG, and IAB reviews.
>>
>> So, once the charter is approved, the chairs will add the updated
>> milestones to the tracker.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On 27/09/2013 10:12 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>>> The relevant mail was:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid/current/msg00642.html
>>>
>>> Sent on 2nd August 2013.
>>>
>>> If you go to the link in this message you will see a slide with a
>> coloured version just for your benefit.
>>>
>>> Not sure why the new milestones are missing - there should ultimately
>> be two new ones. May Gonzalo Camarillo can comment.
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>> Behalf Of James Polk
>>>> Sent: 27 September 2013 19:54
>>>> To: 'Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)'; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Gonzalo
>>>> Camarillo
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Insipid] WG Review: INtermediary-safe SIP session ID
>>>> (insipid)
>>>>
>>>> Chairs and AD
>>>>
>>>> Lacking a good local diff tool, can you articulate what exactly is
>>>> being proposed to change from the existing charter, and why was this
>>>> necessary or needed or asked for?
>>>>
>>>> I mean, the focus of the charter is still on the 2 drafts we've been
>>>> working on for some time now, and that doesn't appear to have
>>>> changed. Additionally, there are no new milestones.
>>>>
>>>> I seemed to have missed the memo that brought this all about.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> At 11:08 AM 9/27/2013, The IESG wrote:
>>>>> The INtermediary-safe SIP session ID (insipid) working group in the
>>>>> Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area of the IETF is
>>>>> undergoing rechartering. The IESG has not made any determination
>>>>> yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for
>>>>> informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG
>>>>> mailing list (iesg at
>>>>> ietf.org) by 2013-10-07.
>>>>>
>>>>> INtermediary-safe SIP session ID (insipid)
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Current Status: Active WG
>>>>>
>>>>> Chairs:
>>>>>   Gonzalo Salgueiro <[e-mail]>
>>>>>   Keith Drage <[e-mail]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Assigned Area Director:
>>>>>   Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mailing list
>>>>>   Address: [e-mail]
>>>>>   To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>>>>>   Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid/
>>>>>
>>>>> Charter:
>>>>>
>>>>> An end-to-end session identifier in SIP-based multimedia
>>>>> communication networks refers to the ability for endpoints,
>>>>> intermediate devices, and management and monitoring system to
>>>>> identify and correlate SIP messages and dialogs of the same
>>>>> higher-level end-to-end "communication session" across multiple SIP
>>>>> devices, hops, and administrative domains.  Unfortunately, there are
>>>>> a number of factors that contribute to the fact that the current
>>>>> dialog identifiers defined in SIP are not suitable for end-to-end
>>>>> session identification. Perhaps the most important factor worth
>>>>> describing is that in real-world deployments of Back-to-Back User
>>>>> Agents (B2BUAs) devices like Session Border Controllers (SBC) often
>>>>> change the call identifiers (e.g., the From-tag and To-tag that are
>>>>> used in conjunction with the Call-ID header to make the dialog-id)
>>>>> as the session signaling passes through.
>>>>>
>>>>> An end-to-end session identifier should allow the possibility to
>>>>> identify the communication session from the point of origin, passing
>>>>> through any number of intermediaries, to the ultimate point of
>>>>> termination. It should have the same aim as the From-tag, To-tag and
>>>>> Call-ID conjunction, but should not be mangled by intermediaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> A SIP end-to-end session identifier has been considered as possible
>>>>> solution of different use cases like troubleshooting, billing,
>>>>> session recording, media and signaling correlation, and so forth.
>>>>> Some of these requirements come from other working groups within the
>>>>> RAI area (e.g., SIPRec).  Moreover, other standards organizations
>>>>> have identified the need for SIP and H.323 to carry the same
>> "session ID"
>>>>> value so that it is possible to identify a call end-to-end even when
>>>>> performing inter working between protocols.
>>>>>
>>>>> Troubleshooting SIP signalling end-to-end becomes impractical as
>>>>> networks grow and become interconnected, including connection via
>>>>> transit networks, because the path that SIP signalling will take
>>>>> between clients cannot be predicted and the signalling volume and
>>>>> geographical spread are too large.
>>>>>
>>>>> This group will focus on two documents:
>>>>>
>>>>> The first document will specify a SIP identifier that has the same
>>>>> aim as the From-tag, To-tag and Call-ID conjunction, but is less
>>>>> likely to be mangled by intermediaries.  In doing this work, the
>>>>> group will pay attention to the privacy implications of a "session
>>>>> ID", for example considering the possibility to make it intractable
>>>>> for nodes to correlate "session IDs" generated by the same user for
>>>>> different sessions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second document will define an indicator that can be added to
>>>>> the SIP protocol to indicate that signalling should be logged. The
>>>>> indicator will typically be applied as part of network testing
>>>>> controlled by the network operator and not used in regular client
>>>>> signalling.  However, such marking can be carried end-to-end
>>>>> including the SIP terminals, even if a session originates and
>>>>> terminates in different networks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Milestones:
>>>>>   Dec 2012 - Requirements and use cases for new identifier sent to
>>>>> IESG (as informational)
>>>>>   Feb 2013 - Specification of the new identifier sent to the IESG
>>>>> (PS)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> insipid mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> insipid mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> insipid mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid