Re: [sip-ops] SIP OPTIONS "ping"

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Fri, 13 August 2010 04:37 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 134743A68AF; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.990, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 h--Sn3epMqC4; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4BD3A6886; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:37:01 -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 o7D4bV4m017262 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:37:36 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1281674257; bh=41p4n7EoAm5q58j8ClmAAJf2n2K4EamqWo3tDar8IIk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=AMOC93eGcjBYEu4hnchhkAzDKfcIoLjDQvBvUV5XD3cHokaF6AtuDcVvrgELF92S/ zjjZ7Owu64dYfurH+cvdfNWbGrIjAeDbf/IizM0bynVC49hfPxsqgwnWB3JIVstkM4 BVgKKvB+ZPnRcTfygHfKaInT837YdMmY9NJiMUwg=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: "'Cullen Jennings'" <fluffy@cisco.com>, <dispatch@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:36:41 -0400
Message-ID: <007e01cb3aa1$23d1d190$6b7574b0$@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: Acs6oSBLpTeEBoJnS/2FMd8r9uxzBg==
Content-language: en-us
Cc: sip-ops@ietf.org, 'Hadriel Kaplan' <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Subject: Re: [sip-ops] 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: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 04:37:03 -0000

Cullen,

Thanks for the suggestion.

All,

Please see the note below.  We're seeking advice on how to proceed with the
subject draft.

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:44 PM
> To: Paul E. Jones
> Cc: sip-ops@ietf.org; Hadriel Kaplan
> Subject: Re: [sip-ops] SIP OPTIONS "ping"
> 
> 
> I think you discuss how to move forward with this draft on dispatch
> mailing list given that's the point of that list is help with problems
> like this.
> 
> On Aug 11, 2010, at 22:14 , 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?
> >
> > 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-ops mailing list
> > sip-ops@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-ops
> 
> 
> Cullen Jennings
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>