Re: [Sip] Toward the Evolution of SIP and Related Working Groups

[Henry Sinnreich <[e-mail]>]

SIP is actually an excellent success story. Not only is SIP the world
standard but there are countless SIP implementations as OS SW.

Maybe we could agree on the following to declare victory and preserve its
success:

1. Any SIP and related work in the IETF is focused on the (stupid = no
intelligence) Internet, as defined in AIB issued RFCs, keeping the e2e
principle in mind.

2. Service provider specific protocols (to support "network based services")
belong in ITU-T or other similar service provider focused organizations,

3. The main deliverable of a WG is free software to validate and support the
protocol document and its refinement. If no free software is contributed,
the WG activity should be suspended. Internet-Drafts not supported by freely
available software (that can be inspected and tried out) and measurements
cannot be proven right or wrong and should therefore be ignored.
There is plenty of IEEE and University work to prove this approach, which
was also the basis for the rise and success of the IETF.

Thanks (and feel free to flame),

Henry 


On 6/16/08 6:23 PM, "Dean Willis" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> The SIP working group spun off from the MMUSIC working group when we
> realized that the SIP work was reasonably separable from the other
> work going on in MMUSIC.
> 
> The SIP working group first met officially at IETF 46 in November
> 1999, although we did have an earlier interim meeting.
> 
> This means that the fall 1999 meeting will be our 10th anniversary. In
> addition to having a big party, I'd also like to plan for this being
> the last meeting of the SIP working group as it is now defined. Ten
> years is long enough. It's time we restructured.
> 
> There will probably still be people who want to change, revise,
> extend, or otherwise manipulate the family of SIP specifications after
> 2009.
> 
> So what should we do? How should we organize to get those needs met?
> Rest assured, we'll be having further discussions on this topic in the
> coming months. But I'd like to start the discussion now.
> 
> By November 2009, I fully expect SIP to have completed the majority of
> currently chartered items. Between now and then, we'll probably also
> take on and complete a bit of new work (although I plan to be very
> resistant to new work). I also expect that there are a few items on
> our charter now that we're not going to finish. It may well be that
> some of those items need a different organizational structure to
> progress than what we have. Or maybe they don't need doing.
> 
> Further, I've come to believe that most working groups should be
> shorter-lived and tightly constrained by their charters to produce a
> single concise set of deliverables. There's still a need for a longer-
> lived thing that maintains architectural oversight. I've come to
> believe that this is the "area", not the working group.
> 
> Let's start the recap by looking at the current charter of the SIP WG.
> I've eliminated the WGLC milestones to shorten the list, as each has a
> following IESG milestone. Note that there's a Feb 2008 milestone for
> "Revise Charter". You can consider this topic the first installment on
> that milestone, even though it is a bit late.
> 
> 1) Jul 2007 Location Conveyance with SIP to IESG (PS)
> 
> 2) Aug 2007 Connection reuse mechanism to IESG (PS)
> 
> 3) Sep 2007 Session Policies to IESG as PS
> 
> 4) Sep 2007 Example security flows to IESG (Informational)
> 
> 5) Oct 2007 New resource priority namespaces for DISA to IESG (PS)
> 
> 6) Nov 2007 Requirements for media keying to IESG (Informational)
> 
> 7 )Dec 2007 Extensions to SIP UA Profile Delivery Change Notification
> Event Package for XCAP to IESG (PS)
> 
> 8) Dec 2007 Roadmap for SIP to IESG (Informational)
> 
> 9) Dec 2007 Using SAML for SIP to IESG (PS)
> 
> 10) Dec 2007 Extension for use in etags in conditional notification to
> IESG (PS)
> 
> 11) Feb 2008 Identify requirements for test matrix to move SIP to
> Draft Standard
> 
> 12) Feb 2008 Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy to
> IESG (PS)
> 
> 13) Feb 2008 Revise charter
> 
> 14) Feb 2008 Establishment of secure media sessions using DTLS-SRTP to
> IESG (PS)
> 
> 15) Apr 2008 MIME body handling in SIP to IESG (PS)
> 
> 16) Apr 2008 Essential corrections to RFC 3261 (1st batch) to IESG (PS)
> 
> 17) Jul 2008 Mechanisms for UA initiated privacy to IESG (BCP)
> 
> 18) Aug 2008 Guidelines for double route recording to IESG (BCP)
> 
> 19) Sep 2008 X.509 Certificates for TLS use in SIP to IESG (PS)
> 
> 20) Sep 2008 X.509 extended key usage for SIP to IESG (PS)
> 
> 21) Nov 2008 Termination of early dialog prior to final response to
> IESG (PS)
> 
> 
> Looking at this, we have a couple of discrete tasks that I think might
> make the basis for different narrowly-scoped working groups. We've
> also got a lot of stuff that we're late on delivering!
> 
> 1) SIP WG (to finish by end of 2009) gets the bulk of these items.
> 
> 2) SIP Draft Standard WG: Takes the milestone of "Identify
> requirements for test matrix to move SIP to Draft Standard" and all of
> the follow-on work needed to move SIP from Proposed to Draft on the
> standards track. There's certainly enough work here for a dedicated
> working group, with the last milestone being something like "Deliver
> SIP as a Draft Standards Document to IESG". We may wish to consider
> whether we really want to go this route or whether we should instead
> be thinking of a "SIP 3.0" effort. My personal though is that there's
> just too much cruft in the RFC 3261 family to make Draft, but I could
> be proven wrong. I'd rather see us put SIP 2.0 into maintenance mode
> at the end of 2009 and move the bulk of our resources into developing
> a SIP 3.0 family designed from the ground up to be Draft-Standard
> achievable.
> 
> 3) RAI Essential Corrections WG: Does this justify its own working
> group? Remember, it would be not just RFC 3261, but the entire family
> of related RFCs that would need lock-step maintenance and corrections.
> Another approach might be to roll the corrections into the Draft
> Standard version of SIP 2.0.
> 
> 4) RAI Policies WG: We have these ongoing, not-quite-committed work
> items like session policies, use of SAML, etc.  that we've never been
> able to get fully wrapped up. I suspect they need their own WG. Or we
> need to decide that these things just aren't worth doing and stop
> feeling guilty about not finishing. As it is, I don't have a good
> feeling about SIP finishing them.
> 
> 5) SIP Operations: I'd like to see SIPPING replaced with a "how to"
> group possibly under the OPS banner. They could deal with all the "how
> do we do X with SIP" from other SDOs. When confronted by a need to
> extend SIP to meet a given need, they could then BOF up a new WG to
> deal with the required extension.
> 
> We already have working groups looking at conferencing, peering,
> telephony feature interop, provisioning, peer-to-peer, NAT traversal,
> 
> Other things that might need WGs: SPIT? Identity and Reputation?
> 
> I also suspect we need a couple of directorates that are not WGs to
> act in an advisory capacity:
> 
> 1) RAI Security Directorate: Focuses on security review and
> architectural issues in RAI documents.
> 
> 2) RAI Event Package Directorate: Reviews and approves new SIP event
> packages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
> Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip