Re: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - IETF telco on the 19th of October

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

If you don't want to implement support for passing through a session-id header, then don't.  No one's making you.  We're talking about an RFC, not a Biblical commandment.  There are a boat-load of RFC's no one's ever implemented.

It's not the be-all-end-all final solution for world hunger.  It's just one header.  It's one tool in a bag of tools.

If some vendors support passing a session-id header and other's don't, it won't be as useful as it could have been.  My customers tell me such a header would help them.  Maybe I'm naive, but I would think when customers tell their vendors to do something, the vendors generally try to do it.  Especially if it's trivial to implement and helps the vendors *themselves* with supporting the customers in TAC.  So my belief is the market will decide if session-id succeeds - customers will either want it, or not.  Meanwhile, all it takes to find out is to publish a fairly simple RFC.  If it fails, we've wasted some IETF people's time and an RFC number.  If it succeeds, we've made SIP a little bit easier to manage, for all of us.

SIPCLF is orthogonal to session-id, really. In fact, one would hope the session-id would be recorded in SIPCLF as well.  Had we published session-id when it was initially proposed, it would have been available in time for SIPCLF to make a mandatory field.

As for SIPREC, that's exactly the problem: I already *know* of cases where we'll need to remove whatever correlation id siprec ends up using.  Overloading this header for such things is just bound to reduce its troubleshooting value, because we'll need to remove or change it.  But that's *OK* - we have no shortage of header names available in SIP ABNF.  They can go define whatever new header-name they'd like, with another value.

-hadriel

On Oct 27, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Parthasarathi R (partr) wrote:

Hadriel,

SBC removing the header in the incoming SIP message and forming the new outgoing message is the default behavior and it is nothing to do with session-id proposal. Session-id IETF RFC will help SBC to design for passing across the specific header in the forthcoming release. Which forthcoming release (after 3 years or 10 years) depends upon the compelling reason for this header in specific SBC or other SIP device as we have number of SIP RFC today to implement.

AFAIK, most of the companies create their own unique session id to identify the session and using it within their network for different purposes. Standardizing session id SIP header makes all the companies to interop in case the purpose of the specific company’s unique session id is not broken. IMO, troubleshooting is one of the usecase which has workaround by building the appropriate logging mechanism and tools to analyze the log across the device. I guess that SIPCLF WG addresses this requirement. If troubleshooting is the only scope of the session-id, the adaptability of this header will take long time or may not take place in case the company provides better means for troubleshooting.

In case of SIPREC, the multiple communication session has to be related together in a single recording session using the unique id. Most of the folks in SIPREC mailing alias thinks that session-id in communication session will serve the purpose. IMO, the usability of the session-id has to be extended and it has to be generic rather than specific service or application.

As I mentioned in the earlier mail thread with RE-INVITE based transfer in B2BUA usecase, session-id in the current form will not serve the purpose for troubleshooting as well. Cisco has the header similar to session-id which is named as "cisco-guid" which has the issue in handling the mentioned usecase. We need to find the better solution for session-id.

Thanks
Partha




________________________________
From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wed 10/27/2010 7:35 PM
To: Parthasarathi R (partr)
Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - IETF telco on the 19th of October



I'm not sure which way you mean this - do you mean if I don't get this published as an IETF RFC then SBC's will remove it, or do you mean even if we go define this as an IETF RFC SBC's will still remove it?

I'm fairly confident that if it's published as an IETF RFC in its current form then SBC's won't remove it - or they will provide upgrades to not remove it.  I believe that because in my experience SBC's do what their owners/operators want them to do.  Whether specific operators/admins decide to have their SBCs remove it or not remains to be seen, but if it's useful for troubleshooting while not harmful then my guess is they'll want the session-id to be passed through.  IF it causes any call failures, then they'll block it, which is why I'm so concerned about expanding the scope of it to other things than troubleshooting.

If it's not published as an IETF RFC, then its less likely to succeed in the marketplace.  I could just take it to 3gpp, but I was hoping to make this useful in non-IMS networks as well, such as Enterprise.

-hadriel


On Oct 27, 2010, at 5:50 AM, Parthasarathi R (partr) wrote:

> Hadriel,
>
> In terms of SIP SBC, any unique ID or header or body will be removed or
> modified whether it is for troubleshooting or for any other application
> purpose.
>
> Let us take the troubleshooting application itself. What is the
> requirement for Enterprise SBC to pass the troubleshooting-id to service
> provider network in case SBC acts as UA or IMS UE to service provider
> network? Being the border element, SBC may wish to put the new
> troubleshooting id (hiding session-id) to the outgoing dialog for the
> same session rather than passing the existing troubleshooting id.
>
> I agree that the unique identification for the session is required in
> different SIP application for different requirements. I'm seeing lot of
> requirement in Enterprise deployment other than troubleshooting and
> also, noticed the unique-id requirement in SIPREC to identify the group
> of communication session.
>
> Until otherwise SBC or any other middle box (B2BUA/Focus) decides to
> pass the specific header(s) based on standard, this unique-id approach
> will never fly.
>
> Thanks
> Partha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat)
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:44 PM
> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - IETF telco on the 19th of October
>
> ISTM there is a Catch-22 here.
>
> If an ID is potentially of use for more than one purpose, some middlebox
> wants to mess with it in regard to one of those purposes. (Block it,
> make it work "better", etc.) Hence the only solution is to create a
> separate ID for each and every possible use. :-(
>
>        Thanks,
>        Paul
>
> On 10/26/2010 11:39 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>>
>> The problem with using session-id for anything else is: for every
>> other use-case discussed so far, I can easily imagine situations where
>
>> a middlebox would need to change the session-id to make things work,
>> thereby negating its troubleshooting value.
>>
>> -hadriel
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Hadriel,
>>>
>>> I have implemented this as well. It has utility in a non-trouble
>>> shooting context in my application.
>>>
>>> I think the issue in IETF was that we fell into the "solve world
>>> hunger" trap. SIPREC through they might find it useful for session
>>> correlation but in a pure SIP sense this mechanism does not guarantee
>
>>> dialog correlation...
>>>
>>> Peter Musgrave
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Hadriel Kaplan
>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>    Hi,
>>>    I see the topic of session-id and SIPSCOTCH came up in this
>>>    meeting. I've tried getting it chartered, but it appears there
>>>    isn't consensus that the narrow topic I want to focus on
>>>    (troubleshooting) is what other people care about.
>>>    (well... not for people in the IETF anyway - I get constant
>>>    queries about this draft mechanism from service providers, but
>>>    they don't generally join nor comment in IETF mailing lists)
>>>
>>>    So I don't really know what to do, other than just implement it
>>>    and convince some other vendors to as well, and avoid the IETF.
>>>    The IETF just isn't a good place for dealing with operational
>>>    issues in SIP, afaict.
>>>
>>>    -hadriel
>>>
>>>
>>>    On Oct 22, 2010, at 9:32 AM, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>    Dear all,
>>>>    please find the minutes of the 3GPP - IETF telco earlier this
> week.
>>>>    *Date:*19^th October 2010
>>>>    *Time:*15:00 - 17:00 UTC
>>>>    *Venue:*Phone conference
>>>>    *Participants:*
>>>>    Hannu Hietalahti (notetaker), Atle Monrad, Peter Schmitt,
>>>>    Christer Holmberg, Peter Dawes, Bengt Sahlin, Keith Drage, Milan
>>>>    Patel, Georg Mayer,
>>>>    Robert Sparks, Adam Roach, Dale Worley, Spencer Dawkins, Dan
>>>>    Romascanu, Jari Arkko, Paul Kyzivat, Ben Campbell
>>>>    *Agenda:*
>>>>    -------------
>>>>    1. Roll call
>>>>    2. Review of action points
>>>>    3. ATOCA work
>>>>    - Presentation of 3GPP PWS in IETF #79
>>>>    4. Stalled drafts
>>>>    - draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis
>>>>    - draft-ietf-patel-ecrit-sos-parameter
>>>>    - draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance
>>>>    - draft-ietf-sipcore-keep
>>>>    - draft-ietf-sipcore-199
>>>>    - draft-bliss-call-completion
>>>>    - draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp
>>>>    - draft-patel-dispatch-cpc-oli-parameter
>>>>    - draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling
>>>>    - draft-kaplan-dispatch-session-id
>>>>    - draft-dawes-dispatch-mediasec-parameter?
>>>>    5. Review of 3GPP IETF dependency document
>>>>    - any comments on any other items in the dependency list
>>>>    6. Next meeting
>>>>    7. AOB
>>>>    8. Closing
>>>>    *1. **ROLL CALL*
>>>>    All participants are listed above.
>>>>    *2. **REVIEW OF ACTION POINTS*
>>>>    *#*     *Old APs from previous meetings*        *Responsible*
> *Status*
>>>>    14      Talk with ECRIT chairs and Robert Sparks to make a
> proposal on
>>>>    how and where the sos-parameter -draft should progress
>>>>    The current version is being reviewed in DISPATCH and then
>>>>    foreseen to proceed as AD sponsored draft
>>>>            Gonzalo         Closed
>>>>    15      Request for volunteers from 3GPP side to co-author
>>>>    draft-mmusic-ice-tcp    Atle    Closed
>>>>    16      Check with 3GPP LS officer why the LS C1-101810 was not
>>>>    distributed on DISPATCH list
>>>>    One way forward would be to provide an informational draft to
>>>>    document how things have been done historically. It was agreed
>>>>    that re-distribution of the LS is not necessary.
>>>>            Hannu   Closed
>>>>            *New APs assigned in this meeting*
>>>>    17      Agree during IETF #79 how to progress the work on
>>>>    draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis  Keith, Christer, Robert Open
>>>>    18      Decide between the editor, DISPATCH co-chairs and AD the
> best
>>>>    approach to progress the work on
>>>>    draft-patel-dispatch-cpc-oli-parameter.         Milan, Mary,
> Cullen,
>>>>    Robert  Open
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    *3. ATOCA**WORK*
>>>>    Outside this meeting it has been agreed with ATOCA WG chairs
> that
>>>>    Hannu Hietalahti will make a presentation of 3GPP Public Warning
>>>>    System in the ATOCA session in IETF #79. The presentation is
>>>>    being prepared in small expert group. The drafting group does
> not
>>>>    follow any 3GPP WG borders but anyone who is willing to work on
>>>>    the presentation is invited to contact Hannu.
>>>>    *4. STALLED DRAFTS*
>>>>    *4.1 draft-drage-sipping-rfc**3455bis*
>>>>    This draft has been stalled due to low priority to drive it from
>>>>    3GPP side. Christer Holmberg volunteered to help out as
> co-editor
>>>>    to get the work done.
>>>>    It still needs to be agreed how to progress this draft. AP 17
> was
>>>>    assigned to determine whether it can proceed as AD sponsored
> draft?
>>>>    *4.2 draft-ietf-patel-ecrit-sos**-parameter*
>>>>    Extensibility mechanism has been removed and now it is reversed
>>>>    back to just URI parameter to indicate emergency registration.
>>>>    The latest draft does not take any position on how the special
>>>>    registration would be treated afterwards. Misuse of URI
> parameter
>>>>    is covered in the latest version, aiming at restricting the use
>>>>    of the special registration to emergency case only.
>>>>    The 3GPP requirement is to identify special registration for
>>>>    emergency purposes.
>>>>    Possible re-naming of the draft was discussed to highlight that
>>>>    it has been recently treated in DISPATCH but no firm decision
> was
>>>>    made on this yet.
>>>>    *4.3 draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance*
>>>>    Authors intend to distribute a new version before IETF #79 to
>>>>    address the open issues that were identified in IETF #78 in
>>>>    Maastricht. The new version will be discussed in Beijing IETF.
> If
>>>>    no new issues are raised, it is expected that the draft could go
>>>>    to WG LC in November or December.
>>>>    *4.4 draft-ietf-sipcore-keep*
>>>>    The draft has just finished WG last call and it has been moved
> to
>>>>    IESG today.
>>>>    *4.5 draft-ietf-sipcore-199*
>>>>    This draft has been in IESG for a while and it has got stuck in
> a
>>>>    discussion on what are the conditions when this draft is
> applicable.
>>>>    The editor is waiting for the comment from the AD (Robert
> Sparks).
>>>>    *4.6 draft**-ietf-bliss-call-completion*
>>>>    The draft is now in WG LC which has already brought up some open
>>>>    issues. Dale Worley has got a list of open items and he will
>>>>    share them with the editor.
>>>>    *4.7 draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp*
>>>>    There has been discussion on the 3GPP requirement for this. Now
> a
>>>>    new editor has taken over the editorship of the draft and the
>>>>    work is ongoing again.
>>>>    Also an email comment on the foreseen way forward was received.
>>>>    The document authors have indicated there are currently no known
>>>>    issues and they have solicited a few reviewers. The authors
>>>>    expect to be ready for WGLC after the Beijing meeting (Nov
> 2010),
>>>>    assuming no new issues come up.
>>>>    *4.8 draft-patel-dispatch-cpc-oli-parameter*
>>>>    There have been no changes since Maastricht, where the feedback
>>>>    was not supportive at all. Informational draft that would
>>>>    document historically existing solution was seen as one possible
>>>>    way forward. However, Tel-URI parameters would require a
>>>>    standards track document, so this point needs to be checked.
>>>>    AP 18 was assigned to determine the best way forward.
>>>>    *4.9 draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling*
>>>>    This draft has got a patent issue related with publication
> number
>>>>    US 2009/0119382 A1, Bakker et al. which is dated May 7^th 2009.
>>>>    3GPP needs to know whether the draft can proceed to RFC or not
>>>>    and take appropriate actions based on that.
>>>>    *4.10 draft-kaplan-dispatch-session-id*
>>>>    This is the first candidate document for SIPSCOTCH. The charter
>>>>    text has been discussed but the group has not been chartered
> yet.
>>>>    This matter has not progressed recently.
>>>>    Those interested in the chartering of the WG should contact the
>>>>    author of the draft to re-start the charter discussion.
>>>>    *4.11 draft-dawes-dispatch-mediasec-parameter*
>>>>    On 3GPP side it is seen that DTLS-based solution is not seen to
>>>>    work in 3GPP environment, so another solution is needed. The
>>>>    editor has not received much feedback on the DISPATCH mailing
>>>>    list on his draft. The editor will re-post the draft to the list
>>>>    and those driving this work can then give their comments.
>>>>    *5. REVIEW OF 3GPP**- IETF DEPENDENCY DOCUMENT*
>>>>    *5.1 De**pendency document review during the teleconference*
>>>>    New version of draft-liess-dispatch-alert-info-urns has been
>>>>    distributed today.
>>>>    The author of draft-jesske-dispatch-reason-in-responses would
>>>>    need AD feedback from Gonzalo on how to proceed with the work.
>>>>    draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm is waiting for AD go-ahead (Gonzalo
>>>>    Camarillo). So far this draft has been processed in sync with
>>>>    draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch, but it is being considered
>>>>    whether that linkage should be broken.
>>>>    The session matching draft (draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch)
> has
>>>>    proven controversial both in earlier IETF discussions and in the
>>>>    IETF last call. It has now been sent back to WG to get consensus
>>>>    on how to proceed. This draft may require substantial
> re-thinking
>>>>    before it can proceed.
>>>>    The status of draft-yu-tel-dai in the I-D tracker will be
> checked
>>>>    by Robert Sparks together with Gonzalo Camarillo.
>>>>    Hannu volunteered to check the latest news on
>>>>    draft-das-mipshop-andsf-dhcp-options from Jari Arkko.
>>>>    draft-pkix-cmp-transport-protocols is also marked as critical,
>>>>    but no comments were made on it.
>>>>    Email comments were received on the following drafts.
>>>>    draft-mipshop-andsf-dhcp-options is in IESG evaluation with two
>>>>    discussions remaining. This is seen to require a straightforward
>>>>    update of the draft and the a review by Tim Polk.
>>>>    draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis is in AD review.
>>>>    draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd is pending for author's changes since
>>>>    September. The discusses seem reasonable.
>>>>    *6. NEXT MEETING*
>>>>    Hannu will attend IETF #79 which makes a good opportunity for
> the
>>>>    next status check-up.
>>>>    *7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS*
>>>>    None.
>>>>    *8. CLOSING*
>>>>    The meeting was closed at 16:20 UTC.
>>>>    BR,
>>>>    Hannu Hietalahti
>>>>    3GPP TSG CT Chairman
>>>>    tel: [phone]
>>>>    <ATT00001..c>
>>>
>>>
>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>    RAI mailing list
>>>    [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RAI mailing list
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai