Re: [Sip] [RAI] Re: RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com> Sun, 24 February 2008 19:20 UTC
Return-Path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-sip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587AD3A67B2; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:20:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.992
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.992 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.555, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 q1EZ+RskdCfa; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7313A687E; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:20:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB21A3A687E; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:20:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 pZn1Lb+vxy5h; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA1B3A67B2; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Feb 2008 11:20:31 -0800
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1OJKVMc027123; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:20:31 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1OJKUJB013421; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:20:31 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:20:30 -0500
Received: from [10.82.240.196] ([10.82.240.196]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:20:30 -0500
Message-ID: <47C1C373.4050106@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:20:19 -0500
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Avshalom Houri <AVSHALOM@il.ibm.com>
References: <OF4D147ED0.D97D7DF1-ONC2257383.0032DA38-C2257383.003A99E6@il.ibm.com> <473B7ECA.1080504@cisco.com> <OF5628F100.71353641-ONC2257394.002B4BC4-C2257394.002B9EAF@il.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF5628F100.71353641-ONC2257394.002B4BC4-C2257394.002B9EAF@il.ibm.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2008 19:20:30.0212 (UTC) FILETIME=[519C6C40:01C8771A]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=14144; t=1203880831; x=1204744831; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jdrosen@cisco.com; z=From:=20Jonathan=20Rosenberg=20<jdrosen@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[RAI]=20Re=3A=20RAI=20review=20of=20dra ft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03 |Sender:=20; bh=M5SLDYZDquIise8nPkLHpfEmti+pEXpbVbIXKqFniZE=; b=nw99b+yKBD36q+8yjMO4W1MJqnMPmoLgMMGgcNwN0O9NFjblUo819ZQPYz WgnSyKP0aeclxEJAKm0rC80plOVeWt0el3u1NXK/gpkc2IOf+MQ7DAkhGlli BPmWdOwczm;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=jdrosen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Cc: sip@ietf.org, rai@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] [RAI] Re: RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Text updated to say: These extensions are general purpose enhancements to SIP, SDP and MIME that can serve a wide variety of uses. However, they are not used for every session or registration, as the core specifications are. which matches the criteria defined in the document for core. -Jonathan R. Avshalom Houri wrote: > > Jonathan, > > Agree with your all replies. > > One comment only: > > First paragraph in section 5: > > These extensions are general purpose enhancements to SIP, SDP and > MIME that can serve a wide variety of uses. However, they are not as > widely used or as essential as the core specifications. > > Maybe should be changed to put more emphasize that these RFCs are not > core specs and less on the wide deployment of them. > Current wording seems to say (at least to me) that wide deployment was > the main > criteria. > > --Avshalom > > > > > > > > *Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>* > > 15/11/2007 01:03 > > > To > Avshalom Houri/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL > cc > sip@ietf.org, rai@ietf.org > Subject > [RAI] Re: RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03 > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments, Avshalom. Responses below: > > Avshalom Houri wrote: > > > > I have been assigned to review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03 > > from the perspective of presence and the SIMPLE group but ended up in > > commenting on the whole document at the end. > > > > For background on RAI-ART, please see the FAQ at > > _http://www.softarmor.com/rai/art/rai-art-FAQ.html_ > > <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html> > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > > you may receive. > > > > In my opinion this draft is basically ready for publication, but has > > nits that should be fixed before publication. > > > > Citations from the draft are marked by <<< text from draft >>> > > > > General comments > > ---------------- > > > > By its nature there are a lot of reference to drafts in the document. > > It will take a lot of time for these documents to become and RFC. > > So how we are going to publish this as an RFC? Since when the > > referenced drafts will become an RFC, this draft would have to be > > updated with new drafts, will it be held in the > > RFC ED queue for ever? > > We had a whole thread on this, so I won't address this again here, but > rather focus on your other comments. > > > > > How do we gauge the usage of an RFC or a draft? There are many places > > here that it is said that this or that RFC/draft got widely implemented > > or not. > > How it is measured? The wide implementation test is used to decide > > whether an RFC or draft are core or not and therefore there should be > > some text explaining how the wide implementation was determined. > > No. Wide usage is not used to determine core or not. There is a litmus > test defined for inclusion as a core spec: > > <list style="symbols"> > > <t>For specifications that impact SIP session management, the > extension would be used for almost every session initiated by a user > agent > </t> > > <t>For specifications that impact SIP registrations, the extension > would be used for almost every registration initiated by a user agent > </t> > > <t>For specifications that impact SIP subscriptions, the extension > would be used for almost every subscription initiated by a user agent > </t> > > </list> > > this definition is based entirely on the functionality of the spec and > not judgement on its deployment. > > The comments on deployment in the document are based on my own > observation and awareness. Please feel free to suggest changes, that > part of the description can only be improved with data from additional > folks. > > > > > Better change RFC XXXX (before the reference number in []) to the name > > of the draft (with no version number), it will make the ride smoother. > > OK. Changing to symrefs helps a lot. > > > > > An introduction that details the various grouping should be added. It > > should include additional text on the group and what was the criteria > > for putting an RFC/draft in the group. > > OK, I added a list in the introduction along with brief classification > description. > > > > > 2. Scope of this Document > > -------------------------- > > > > <<< > > o Any specification that defines an extension to SIP itself, where > > an extension is a mechanism that changes or updates in some way a > > behavior specified in RFC 3261 > > >>> > > > > "to SIP itself" sounds vague. It will be better to say:"to RFC 3261" > > instead. > > Maybe there should be an earlier definition of RFC 3261 as the SIP > nucleus > > (or the president of the galaxy) and that RFCs/drafts mentioned in this > > document are based on their relation to it. > > changed this sentence to: > > <t>Any specification that defines an extension to RFC 3261, > where an extension is a mechanism that changes or updates in > some way a behavior specified there. > </t> > > > > > > <<< > > Excluded from this list are requirements, architectures, registry > > definitions, non-normative frameworks, and processes. Best Current > > Practices are included when they normatively define mechanisms for > > accomplishing a task. > > >>> > > > > "normatively define" not sure what is meant by normative with > > respect to BCP. Seems like a contradiction in terms. > > Actually BCPs can contain normative text and are, in many ways, very > much like a PS. > > > > > 3. Core SIP Specifications > > --------------------------- > > > > If we think on presence as eventually replacing registration, since it > > carries much more information about the availability of the user, > > should we consider also presence as a towel? > > > > <<< > > RFC 3261, The Session Initiation Protocol (S): RFC 3261 [1] is the > > core SIP protocol itself. RFC 3261 is an update to RFC 2543 [9]. > > It is the president of the galaxy [42] as far as the suite of SIP > > specifications is concerned. > > >>> > > > > RFC 3261 is a very big document. Should it be treated as one or it can > > be divided into parts in this document e.g. proxy, client etc.? I am not > > sure what would be better. > > The purpose here is to just enumerate the specs and describe each. I > don't think the aim is to break it up here. > > > > > 4. Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) Interworking > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Regarding RFC 3578 > > Ugly in one corner of the galaxy may be beautiful on the other of it :-) > > > > 7. Minor Extensions > > -------------------- > > > > <<< > > RFC XXXX, Referring to Multiple Resources in SIP (S): RFC XXXX [44] > > allows a UA sending a REFER to ask the recipient of the REFER to > > generate multiple SIP requests, not just one. This is useful for > > conferencing, where a client would like to ask a conference server > > to eject multiple users. > > >>> > > > > Should not this be referred to in the conferencing section also? > > ok > > > > > <<< > > RFC 4483, A Mechanism for Content Indirection in Session Initiation > > Protocol (SIP) Messages (S): RFC 4483 [89] defines a mechanism for > > content indirection. Instead of carrying an object within a SIP > > body, a URL reference is carried instead, and the recipient > > dereferences the URL to obtain the object. The specification has > > potential applicability for sending large instant messages, but > > has yet to find much actual use. > > >>> > > > > The specification has also potential for sending large presence > > documents via a URL. > > sure, but I don't think it would really be classified as a > presence-related spec. > > > > > <<< > > RFC 4583, Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor > > Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams (S): RFC 4583 [91] defines a > > mechanism in SDP to signal floor control streams that use BFCP. > > It is used for Push-To-Talk and conference floor control. > > >>> > > > > Should not this be referred to in the conferencing section also? > > ok > > > > > <<< > > RFC XXXX, Connectivity Preconditions for Session Description Protocol > > Media Streams (S): RFC XXXX [93] defines a usage of the precondition > > framework [59]. The connectivity precondition makes sure that the > > session doesn't get established until actual packet connectivity > > is checked. > > >>> > > > > Should not this be referred to in the QoS section also? > > Well, the line is fine, but connectivity preconditions is not about QoS > as most folks think of it (i.e., bandwidth reservation). > > > > > 8. Conferencing > > ---------------- > > > > The Conferencing section should be before or after "Instant Messaging, > > Presence and Multimedia" as it is also an application. See the comment > > on whether presence is an application or not later. > > moved. > > > > > 10. Event Framework and Packages > > ---------------------------------- > > > > Suggest to divide this section to event framework section and to > > packages section. The event framework should include 3265, 3903, 4662 > > and subnot-etags which define the event framework itself. > > The other section will the packages sections that will list the > > packages. > > OK. > > > > > Alternatively, many of the packages are mentioned in their proper > > section so it may be that all the event packages can be fit into > > their relevant section and there is not a need for packages section. > > I think its useful to list them. > > > > > 11. Quality of Service > > ----------------------- > > > > <<< > > RFC 3313, Private SIP Extensions for Media Authorization (I): RFC > > 3313 [61] defines a P-header that provides a mechanism for passing > > an authorization token between SIP and a network QoS reservation > > protocol like RSVP. Its purpose is to make sure network QoS is > > only granted if a client has made a SIP call through the same > > providers network. This specification is sometimes referred to as > > the SIP walled garden specification by the truly paranoid androids > > in the SIP community. This is because it requires coupling of > > signaling and the underlying IP network. > > >>> > > > > Understand that being a "truly paranoid" is a virtue? :-) > > > > 15. Security Mechanisms > > ------------------------ > > > > Should not RFC 3323 (Privacy), RFC 3325 (Asserted-ID) and RFC 4474 > > (Identity) be mentioned here also? > > Hmm, well Brian had suggested that RFC 3325 has nothing to do with > 'secure caller ID' so that one is definitely debatable. > > 4474 definitely fits here. 3323 is kind of fuzzy, but I'll include. > > > > > 16. Instant Messaging, Presence and Multimedia > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > Maybe create an applications section and put also conferencing as a type > > of an application. > > Applications is really broad. The service URI stuff could be considered > an app too. I think its valuable to have finer granularity than that. > > > > > Including presence here with IM and multimedia seems that presence is > > regarded as an additional type of media. I am not sure that I agree with > > this. Presence is an enabler for many other applications and it deserves > > a section of its own. > > Certainly its valuable, sufficiently so that simple-simple addresses it > more completely and obviously separates IM from presence. But its not > the emphasis of this document. If I split off presence there is only two > docs in there (winfo and presence package), and only one in IM (3428) so > this seems to argue for keeping them together. I did add a reference to > simple-simple in the intro to let people know there is a more complete > source of presence specs elsewhere. > > > > > It is very tempting to include the simple-simple content here > > (as an appendix?). If simple-simple is not to be included here, there > > should be at least a reference to simple-simple as for presence > > there are so many documents that are essential for doing presence and > > are not mentioned here (e.g. watcher format, RPID, presence rules, > > partial notify and publish and many many more). > > done. > > > Roughly counting, there > > are about 20-25 RFCs/drafts that are very relevant to presence that are > > mentioned in simple-simple in addition to the ones that are mentioned > here. > > right, since they are not sip extensions. > > > > > The MSRP drafts seem to be forgotten? > > Not a sip extension. RTP isn't listed here either. > > -Jonathan R. > -- > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza > Cisco Fellow Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711 > Cisco Systems > jdrosen@cisco.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 > http://www.jdrosen.net <http://www.jdrosen.net/> > PHONE: (973) 952-5000 > http://www.cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/> > > _______________________________________________ > RAI mailing list > RAI@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai > -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 499 Thornall St. Cisco Fellow Edison, NJ 08837 Cisco, Voice Technology Group jdrosen@cisco.com http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (408) 902-3084 http://www.cisco.com _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
- [Sip] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-gu… Avshalom Houri
- [Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- [Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… Avshalom Houri
- [Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… Francois Audet
- [Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- [Sip] Re: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… Jonathan Rosenberg
- [Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… Brian Stucker
- Re: [Sip] Re: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-… Spencer Dawkins
- [Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… Avshalom Houri
- [Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… Francois Audet
- Re: [Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-… Spencer Dawkins
- [Sip] Re: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… Jonathan Rosenberg
- [Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… Francois Audet
- [Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- [Sip] Re: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… Andrew Booth
- [Sip] Re: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitc… Jonathan Rosenberg
- [Sip] Re: RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhiker… Jonathan Rosenberg
- [Sip] Re: [RAI] Re: RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-… Avshalom Houri
- Re: [Sip] [RAI] Re: RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-… Jonathan Rosenberg