RE: [Sip] outbound open issues from IETF 67

"Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage@lucent.com> Thu, 23 November 2006 15:02 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GnG5o-0006Up-FQ; Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:02:24 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GnG5n-0006Uj-1E for sip@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:02:23 -0500
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com ([135.245.0.35]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GnG5l-00024b-KE for sip@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:02:23 -0500
Received: from ilexp01.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-1.lucent.com [135.3.39.1]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id kANF22Zf016411; Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:02:02 -0600 (CST)
Received: from DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com ([135.248.187.66]) by ilexp01.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:02:02 -0600
Received: from DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.28]) by DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:02:00 +0100
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: RE: [Sip] outbound open issues from IETF 67
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:01:59 +0100
Message-ID: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE29180846E9F@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <8B1D53AEF7B03449A6D3771B3B7F850F03060C56@esebe103.NOE.Nokia.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sip] outbound open issues from IETF 67
Thread-Index: AccM2vJiy3PjIkueQJ+nLnCBrLAx5wAobaYgAGTjQtA=
From: "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <drage@lucent.com>
To: Erkki.Koivusalo@nokia.com, rohan@ekabal.com, sip@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Nov 2006 15:02:00.0463 (UTC) FILETIME=[53E309F0:01C70F10]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2beba50d0fcdeee5f091c59f204d4365
Cc:
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.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: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

They, in this case, is I believe one organisation.

The proposal was referred back until the requirements are known - in any
case 3GPP cannot define option-tags.

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erkki.Koivusalo@nokia.com [mailto:Erkki.Koivusalo@nokia.com] 
> Sent: 21 November 2006 15:11
> To: rohan@ekabal.com; sip@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Sip] outbound open issues from IETF 67
> 
> 
> Hi Rohan,
> 
> I do not have any objections to any of the proposals you made 
> for Outbound. However I have a question related to the Issue 
> 3G you had on your slideset. The slideset outlined the 3GPP 
> requirement as follows:
> 
> - 3GPP and others want to store multiple path vectors back to 
> an instance, each associated with a reg-id.
> - New registrations with the same reg-id would replace the 
> old binding.
> * BUT 3GPP wants to do this unrelated to outbound flow-token 
> processing
> * 3GPP wants separation of binding behavior and flow-token behavior
> * Why? Their IPsec UDP uses several pairs of actual flows, 
> instead of just one.
> 
> In 3GPP there is also a backwards compatibility issue related 
> to the IPSec SA management in the edge proxy (P-CSCF). Old 
> implementations not supporting Outbound would drop the old 
> logical flow (IPSec SA) if the UA registers with a new reg-id 
> and IP address. Thus the UA should be able to make sure that 
> the edge proxy supports the new behaviour, before trying to 
> establish multiple flows over different access networks 
> towards the single edge proxy.
> 
> They have been proposing a new option tag for this purpose, 
> something like this:
> 
>    Name: mreg
>    Description: This option-tag is used to identify SIP servers which
>       are able to maintain multiple logical flows per UA instance.
> 
> What do you think about this proposal ? 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Erkki
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ext Rohan Mahy [mailto:rohan@ekabal.com]
> >Sent: 20.November.2006 21:21
> >To: sip@ietf.org
> >Cc: Rohan Mahy
> >Subject: [Sip] outbound open issues from IETF 67
> >
> >Hi Folks,
> >
> >I've incorporated all the changes we agreed to at IETF67.  For those 
> >who have not seen them yet, please consult the slides available here:
> >http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/sip-3.pdf
> >
> >In addition, I have proposed text for Issues D&E (see below).
> >
> >In summary, we agreed from the meeting:
> >- Consensus to use 430 response
> >- Consensus to keep the "stable flow timer"
> >Bug A: No objection to fixing this bug
> >Issue B: consensus to only require 1st hop and registrar to 
> participate 
> >Issue C: consensus for No Action Issue D: did not discuss, proposal 
> >mentioned below Issue E: did not discuss, proposal mentioned below 
> >Issue F: consensus for No Action Issue 3G: rough consensus to Accept 
> >action 2
> >
> >(Bug A): Provided mention of the 'rport' parameter.
> >
> >(Issue 3G): Relaxed flow-token language slightly. Instead of 
> flow-token 
> >saving specific UDP address/port tuples over which the 
> request arrived, 
> >make language fuzzy to save token which points to a 'logical 
> flow' that 
> >is known to deliver data to that specific UA instance.
> >
> >(Issue B): Changed registrar verification so that only 
> first-hop proxy 
> >and the registrar need to support outbound.  Other intermediaries in 
> >between do not any more.
> >
> >(Issues D&E): Proposal text:
> >The UAC can situationally decide whether to request outbound 
> behavior 
> >by including or omitting the 'reg-id' parameter.  For 
> example, imagine 
> >the outbound-proxy-set contains two proxies in different domains,
> >EP1 and EP2.
> > If an outbound-style registration succeeded for a flow through EP1, 
> >the UA might decide to include 'outbound' in its option-tag when 
> >registering with EP2, in order to insure consistency.  Similarly, if 
> >the registration through EP1 did not support outbound, the UA might 
> >decide to omit the 'reg-id' parameter when registering with EP2.
> >
> >I believe the proposed text for D&E is sufficient and should 
> be fairly 
> >non-controversial.  If anyone has any objections, please 
> speak up ASAP 
> >(and *send text* ;-).
> >
> >thanks,
> >-rohan
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sip mailing list  https://www1.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 mailing list  https://www1.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 mailing list  https://www1.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