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

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Mon, 16 August 2010 13:17 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 54CB23A681E; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 06:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.249, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_72=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 U7fv0jMSOlwZ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 06:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75CD3A688E; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 06:17:41 -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 o7GDHx6Y014122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:18:05 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1281964686; bh=7VdJc4HB6XEmHJkTJwC0KQJ3x6yT4Ssmjp8PlfTa1EU=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=J09ayVr78hLC/D2k6PHDO22wdCizkEcVNVCv7c48TJAwYHq7aQrsToVyoXpuMGtW7 L6cIwJ4krd3onEHjp8IMrIntguiAmZn//iXL73tl7BxZga6cwXKhAhi1ZIbXORiubb 9LE6kpZcEUUuj/TBdqcraubtz3c8v6HToIVhMdJY=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: "'marius zbihlei'" <marius.zbihlei@1and1.ro>
References: <053401cb39dd$44070ee0$cc152ca0$@packetizer.com> <4C690C38.6010804@1and1.ro>
In-Reply-To: <4C690C38.6010804@1and1.ro>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:17:03 -0400
Message-ID: <012901cb3d45$5544c880$ffce5980$@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: AQJ7YPXf2shkdXst8Oeg2uiqnTvIBAJGarLckXGTVKA=
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 13:17:43 -0000

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

> -----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
> >
> >