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

Folks,

I just wanted to bring this draft to everyone's attention again.  What
should we do with it?  Should we modify this to be informational or pursue a
standards track draft?  Several have expressed an interest in seeing this go
forward in some form to help ensure better interoperability, but the list
has been fairly silent.

Here's the draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-sip-options-ping

Thanks,
Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Paul E. Jones
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:37 AM
> To: 'Cullen Jennings'; dispatch@ietf.org
> Cc: sip-ops@ietf.org; 'Hadriel Kaplan'
> Subject: Re: [sip-ops] SIP OPTIONS "ping"
> 
> 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
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sip-ops mailing list
> sip-ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-ops