Re: [sipcore] Minutes from the IETF 103 sipcore session

["A. Jean Mahoney" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Since I haven't heard any corrections/additions, I'll be posting the 
minutes to the proceedings.

Thanks!

Jean


On 11/8/18 4:31 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Below is my summary of the session in Bangkok. Below the summary are the 
> notes that Roland took during the session. Thanks, Roland!
> 
> Please post any comments or corrections to the list by Nov 16.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jean
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> SIPCORE - IETF 103 Bangkok
> 2018 November 08, Thursday
> 11:20- 12:20, Chitlada 3
> 
> Co-Chairs: Jean Mahoney, Brian Rosen
> Substitute co-chairs for meeting: Nils Ohlmeier, Gonzalo Salguiero
> AD: Ben Campbell
> 
> Jabber relay: Ben Campbell
> Note taker: Roland Jesske
> 
> Agenda:
> 
>     05 min - Agenda and WG Status
>              Presenter: Jean Mahoney
> 
>     45 min - SIP Session Timer Glare Handling
>              Draft: draft-ietf-sipcore-sessiontimer-race
>              Presenter: Christer Holmberg
> 
>     05 min - Any Other Business/Wrap Up
> 
> 
> Nils and Gonzalo presented the agenda; there were no changes.
> 
> Jean Mahoney (remote) presented WG status 
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sipcore-chairs-slides-00); 
> there were no comments.
> 
> Christer Holmberg presented SIP Session Timer Glare Handling 
> (draft-ietf-sipcore-sessiontimer-race, 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sipcore-session-timer-glare-handling-00). 
> 
> 
> Roland Jesske supported the solution in the slides. Roman Shpount had 
> technical feedback on the slides, but would provide it on list.
> 
> It was discussed whether a RFC4028bis draft should be created rather 
> than going forward draft-ietf-sipcore-sessiontimer-race. Consensus in 
> the room was that a bis should be created, and tightly scoped to fixing 
> bugs and ambiguities that caused problems in the field. Editorial 
> changes and enhancements were out of scope. Ben Campbell pointed out 
> that the IESG finds it easier to review bis documents that have not been 
> rearranged or heavily wordsmithed. Jean wondered if the WG might find a 
> requirements draft for the bis useful. Response was a strong no.
> 
> ACTION: Chairs to ask on list whether a RFC4028bis draft should be 
> created instead of going forward draft-ietf-sipcore-sessiontimer-race. 
> DONE 2018 Nov 8.
> 
> No other business was brought up.
> 
> Meeting adjourned.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status of SIPCORE was presented. See Chair Slides.
> 
> No Discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Christer presenting slides on “Session Timer” based on discussions made 
> on the list regarding draft-ietf-sipcore-sessiontimer-race.
> 
> GitHub was opened for issues to be tracked.
> 
> Note: Current draft does not reflect the current status of discussion. A 
> new draft will follow.
> 
> Result of Meeting: It was decided that a 4028bis shall be created with a 
> narrow scope based on todays presentation on real issues causing 
> Failures. Editorial changes and wordsmithing is out of scope. This goes 
> to mailing list for approval.
> 
> 
> 
> Some Comments made during the presentation of Christer’s slides
> 
> Ben: pointed to the fact that only Bug’s in RFC4028 sould be considered.
> 
> Not rewriting the draft is proposed only to solve the issues.
> 
> Roland: supporting the proposals made by the slides
> 
> Roman: Resolving the glare situation for UPDATE w/o SDP is not easy to 
> be solved. As well as the glare situation UPDATE/INVITE. Pointed to the 
> issue of multiple transactions with S-E negotiation. Would like to have 
> only one draft to solve all issues.
> 
> Christer: started the discussion if we need a “bis” or “update” draft. 
> If we do a “bis” we need a strong statement of the scope.
> 
> Ben: agrees on Christer statements.
> 
> Jean: Keep the scope firmly. Requirements draft. This we want to fix. Or 
> is it better to catch this in Mailing list.
> 
> Ben: is not in favor for a requirements draft.
> 
> Gonzalo: ISEG do not really like requirements draft
> 
> Christer: Section will be there to describe the changes.
> 
> Paul: We do not need a requirements draft. Language in RFC is misleading 
> and needs improvement on text.
> 
> Roman: limit the scope to the multiple negotiation S-E.
> 
> Ben: Same opinion. Ambiguous text which causes problems should be 
> changed. All other not. Editorial and stylistic improvements should not 
> in scope.
> 
> Roland: BIS effort would nice but other approach would be also OK. As 
> long as we get an fast solution.
> 
> Jean: Bis approach will be taken but needs to be confirmed on the list.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore