Re: [MMUSIC] WG Poll on the middleboxes draft (draft-ietf-mmusic-media-path-middleboxes)

[Brian Stucker <[e-mail]>]

Why wouldn't the WG simply publish the document and move on?

Cheers,
Brian Stucker

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Flemming,
>
> I take a pragmatic view. The document has been worked on in the group for
> a while, a WGLC had been held, the received last call comments had been
> incorporated in the meanwhile.
>
> From there on there are only two routes (IMHO):
> a) publish the document through the working group,
> b) the authors submit it to the RFC editor as an independent submission
>
> At this point in time the outcome is not so much different anymore (since
> the working group had already provided their input).
>
> The text about the impact of middleboxes on signaling protocols is
> something worth capturing and the offered guidance seems to be OK. I still
> think that this writeup will be a useful reference for the work on
> middleboxes with relationship to security protocols.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2012, at 2:09 AM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
>
> > Some comments (as an individual)
> >
> > A lot of the SIP and SDP work started out with a somewhat "purist"
> Internet view of the world, where things such as middleboxes were not
> considered. As other standards and industry organizations became interested
> in using SIP and SDP, different architectures were defined and some of
> those arcitectures did include the notion of middleboxes (e.g. 3GPP IMS and
> CableLabs PacketCable). From an IETF point of view, there was, at least
> initially, not a great deal of knowledge about these architectures and what
> the middleboxes defined by them were doing. Conversely, there was (is) also
> a concern that such middleboxes may break end-to-end transparency and hence
> there was a desire to try and alleviate that.
> >
> > To that effect, it was seen as useful to have a document that could
> > a) Explain what/how middleboxes might be operating in these architectures
> > b) Provide guidelines as to how such middleboxes could minimize (ideally
> avoid) impacting end-to-end transparency and/or how protocols could be used
> to try and alleviate any impact such middleboxes might have.
> >
> > The middleboxes draft is trying to address the above as it relates to
> the media path. The target audience is thus IETF participants that would
> like an overview of how these middleboxes may affect SIP/SDP-signaled media
> streams as well as what can be done to try and overcome that. Similarly,
> the document is targeted at people involved in these "other" architecture
> efforts, with a goal of making it clear how middleboxes may affect the
> operation of SIP/SDP-signaled media streams and hence provide some "design
> principles". This is not unlike some of the NAT work that was done in
> BEHAVE.
> >
> > It could be argued that these architectures have now been around for so
> long that producing the above document will not make any difference at this
> point. While I have some sympathy for this, I also think we have to
> recognize the importance of documenting what we know and to make that
> readily available for new people that will be working in this space.
> >
> > In other words, I still believe there is value in pursuing this
> document. As to whether it should be a BCP or Informational, I don't
> have any strong opinions.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > -- Flemming (as an individual)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/8/12 6:37 PM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> As part of the MMUSIC charter we have the following milestone
> >>
> >> Sep 2012     Submit Considerations for using SDP offer/answer with
> middleboxes for BCP
> >> and we have the middleboxes draft
> >>
> >>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-media-path-middleboxes-04.txt
> >>
> >> to address that milestone.
> >>
> >> As discussed at IETF 83 (Paris), Hadriel Kaplan raised some concerns
> with the goal of the document and the potential target as further explained
> in the following e-mail:
> >>
> >>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg09278.html
> >>
> >> A set of (initial) technical comments were also provided by Hadriel in
> the following e-mail:
> >>
> >>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg08640.html
> >>
> >> For now, the chairs would like to focus on the first set of questions
> above, i.e. what is the goal and potential target audience for the document
> and is there still value in pursuing it ?
> >>
> >>
> >> The chairs would like to poll the group for opinions and interest in
> this. Specific areas to consider:
> >>
> >> 1) What is the target audience for the document ?
> >>
> >> 2) Do people believe that the target audience will read and/or care
> about this document at this point ?
> >>
> >> 3) Should the document be a BCP or Informational ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> -- Miguel & Flemming (as chairs)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mmusic mailing list
> >>
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>