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

"Belling, Thomas (NSN - DE/Munich)" <thomas.belling@nsn.com> Mon, 25 June 2012 08:48 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.belling@nsn.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EF321F8499 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 WFFMjx0yoVKN for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F230021F848F for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q5P8mQ1e000370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:48:26 +0200
Received: from DEMUEXC047.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.32.93]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q5P8mOtJ021533; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:48:25 +0200
Received: from DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.25]) by DEMUEXC047.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:48:25 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD52AF.45C88721"
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:48:20 +0200
Message-ID: <1A8A7D59006A8240B27FF63C794CA57F01847BDB@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FD28645.5000702@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] WG Poll on the middleboxes draft(draft-ietf-mmusic-media-path-middleboxes)
Thread-Index: Ac1Fy9rilvjQ2Q2UTnC8Y+IHqis9qAM41FGg
References: <4FD27EAB.1090102@cisco.com> <4FD28645.5000702@cisco.com>
From: "Belling, Thomas (NSN - DE/Munich)" <thomas.belling@nsn.com>
To: ext Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, mmusic@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2012 08:48:25.0496 (UTC) FILETIME=[48A24180:01CD52AF]
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-size: 14696
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1340614106-00003CDD-519CC6AD/0-0/0-0
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WG Poll on the middleboxes draft(draft-ietf-mmusic-media-path-middleboxes)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:48:35 -0000

I agree.

 

Thomas

 

 

----------------------------------
Dr. Thomas Belling 
3GPP Standardisation
Nokia Siemens Networks 

 

 

From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of ext Flemming Andreasen
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 1:10 AM
To: mmusic
Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-media-path-middleboxes@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WG Poll on the middleboxes
draft(draft-ietf-mmusic-media-path-middleboxes)

 

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
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic