Re: [sip-ops] [Sip-implementors] SIP OPTIONS "ping"
"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Mon, 16 August 2010 16:46 UTC
Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Original-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABCB73A69FF; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.982, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_72=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_84=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mskALhJK5foI; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C51F3A6881; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney (rrcs-98-101-146-183.midsouth.biz.rr.com [98.101.146.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o7GGkeZv021331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:46:45 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1281977206; bh=dNihPNbCFDt7yt2oAriEUHRYofxgpuvfKOiXR5gK9CA=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=af+MLW3kUzXW7YjHnDXc27LmEfg+fq2VZKnyy9TGHCYlB9uHQnt7+awV2P4ZQWP08 m8RysRPrRtdvSRyQCn+Gu0fop6pXUtx+e7hy22AtpOdg6DEKZ8l9yOdSA0ov1YRuZV 9bp1m9H1tcLe5DwYBHyhS7yWB8mnYdpaKqkpb1gg=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: 'marius zbihlei' <marius.zbihlei@1and1.ro>
References: <053401cb39dd$44070ee0$cc152ca0$@packetizer.com> <4C690C38.6010804@1and1.ro> <012901cb3d45$5544c880$ffce5980$@packetizer.com> <4C694532.4020109@1and1.ro>
In-Reply-To: <4C694532.4020109@1and1.ro>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:45:44 -0400
Message-ID: <017e01cb3d62$7c171d10$74455730$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJ7YPXf2shkdXst8Oeg2uiqnTvIBAJGarLcAUcUVigCKte1dZFWP3xg
Content-language: en-us
Cc: sip-ops@ietf.org, dispatch@ietf.org, 'Hadriel Kaplan' <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>, sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [Sip-implementors] SIP OPTIONS "ping"
X-BeenThere: sip-ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Operations <sip-ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-ops>, <mailto:sip-ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-ops>
List-Post: <mailto:sip-ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-ops>, <mailto:sip-ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:46:21 -0000
Marius, There is another important consideration to give to this. The OPTIONS "ping" we described was intended to be between a device and its next hop. What you would actually want is an OPTIONS that goes end-to-end. I think both need clarification, but I'm now thinking that perhaps we ought to document these separately. Of course, I'd be happy to work with you on both. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: marius zbihlei [mailto:marius.zbihlei@1and1.ro] > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 10:04 AM > To: Paul E. Jones > Cc: sip-ops@ietf.org; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu; 'Gonzalo > Salgueiro'; 'Hadriel Kaplan'; dispatch@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP OPTIONS "ping" > > Paul E. Jones wrote: > > Marius, > > > > It is certainly true that we were focused entirely on out-of-dialog > > OPTIONS messages when we wrote the draft. I'm certainly not opposed > > to also including in-dialog OPTIONS exchanges if it fit smoothly within > the draft. > > Alternatively, we could create two drafts. > > > > Would you like to draft some initial text for in-dialog and see if it > > makes sense to include it in this same draft or a separate one? If in > > the same draft, then perhaps in-dialog and OOD would be two separate > sections? > > > > Paul > > > > > Hello again, > > I would gladly draft some initial text around this idea, but I am a little > torn apart between what I expect from the draft(and current > implementations) and what previous standards say. > > Quote from RFC 3261 > 12.2.2 UAS Behavior "Requests that do not change in any way the state of a > dialog may be received within a dialog (for example, an OPTIONS request). > They are processed as if they had been received outside the dialog." > > Along with other texts[1], this means that in-dialog OPTIONS requests > should be treated as OOD(also the thread I have linked seems to suggest > that). But I know for certain that lots of implementors do return a 481, > and several services rely on that error code to check if a dialog is still > running. I know about SIP Session Timers but using OPTIONS ping like > this(to discover if a dialog has finished) has some benefits(like the > proxy being able to terminate a call , which is not possible using SST > [2]), and more and more this looks like a "de facto" behavior. > > With this in mind, I have to ask the question: Should we allow (or > inforce) the 481 response for a in-dialog OPTIONS request(if the dialog > does not exits)(this is what I personally want and many implementors > already do), or should we respond with a 200 OK regardless if the dialog > exists or not?! > > Thank you in advance for answering this. > > [1] RFC 5057 section 5.3: "OPTIONS does not belong to any usage. Only > those failures discussed in Section 5.1 and Section 5.2 that destroy > entire dialogs will have any effect on the usages sharing the dialog with > a failed OPTIONS request." > > This in fact might prove usefull, as a failed in-dialog OPTIONS request > will guaranty that the dialog will not be destroyed > > [2] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4028.txt > 8.3. Session Expiration > > When the current time equals or passes the session expiration for a > session, the proxy MAY remove associated call state, and MAY free any > resources associated with the call. Unlike the UA, it MUST NOT send a BYE. > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: marius zbihlei [mailto:marius.zbihlei@1and1.ro] > >> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 6:00 AM > >> To: Paul E. Jones > >> Cc: sip-ops@ietf.org; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu; Gonzalo > >> Salgueiro; Hadriel Kaplan > >> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP OPTIONS "ping" > >> > >> Paul E. Jones wrote: > >> > >>> Folks, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Gonzalo and I produced an Internet Draft aiming at trying to bring > >>> some consistency to the way in which SIP user agents implement an > >>> > >> OPTIONS "ping" > >> > >>> procedure. It seems that a very large number of vendors do this, > >>> but unfortunately, there seems to be little consistency. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Initially, we positioned the document as a standards track RFC, > >>> since this essentially builds on RFC 3261. However, there was some > >>> pushback from folks in the IETF for a variety of reasons, not the > >>> least of which is the fact that there is no working group chartered > >>> to do the work. We don't feel this one draft warrants the creation > >>> of a working > >>> > >> group. > >> > >>> > >>> So, we've got three options we can consider: > >>> > >>> 1) Forge ahead outside of a working group > >>> > >>> 2) Change the status of the draft to Informational > >>> > >>> 3) Forget about the draft and let every SIP device do it the way > >>> > >> they > >> > >>> want, throwing hope of consistency out the window > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> (Yeah, you can tell I prefer not to go for the third option.) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> In any case, I'd like to get feedback from the on the SIP operators > >>> and SIP implementers lists. Do you think it's worth trying to > >>> address > >>> > >> this issue? > >> > >>> If so, which option do you think we should pursue? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I have read the draft and as far I can tell it addresses OPTIONS > >> outside a dialog. I know that this has already been discussed on this > >> mailing list[1], but there still are many vendors/SIP implementors > >> that use a in- dialog OPTIONS to figure out if a dialog is still > >> running(if not the UAS "will" respond with a 481- Call does not > >> exist). By reading the comments and the RFC I know this is wrong(a > >> UAS might return a 200 OK even if the dialog does not exist), but I > >> think this enters into the "3) Forget about the draft and let every > >> SIP device do it the way they want, throwing hope of consistency out > the window " category. > >> > >> My first reaction is also to address this topic in the draft. What do > >> you think? > >> > >> Marius > >> > >> [1]https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2008- > >> May/019278.html > >> > >>> Note that we're certainly open to feedback on the draft. I'd prefer > >>> it to have a few more "MUST" statements in the text, rather than > >>> "SHOULD". But, we need to find that right balance: > >>> > >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-sip-options-ping > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Paul > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Sip-implementors mailing list > >>> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > >>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > >
- [sip-ops] SIP OPTIONS "ping" Paul E. Jones
- Re: [sip-ops] SIP OPTIONS "ping" Brian Rosen
- Re: [sip-ops] SIP OPTIONS "ping" Cullen Jennings
- Re: [sip-ops] [Sip-implementors] SIP OPTIONS "pin… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [sip-ops] SIP OPTIONS "ping" Paul E. Jones
- Re: [sip-ops] SIP OPTIONS "ping" Paul E. Jones
- Re: [sip-ops] [Sip-implementors] SIP OPTIONS "pin… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [sip-ops] [Sip-implementors] SIP OPTIONS "pin… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] [Sip-implementors] SIP O… Michael Miller
- Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] [Sip-implementors] SIP O… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] [Sip-implementors] SIP O… Michael Miller
- Re: [sip-ops] SIP OPTIONS "ping" Paul E. Jones
- Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP OPTIONS "ping" Marius Zbihlei