IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] Session Timers (RFC 4028) for REFER, PUBLISH, MESSAGE not defined

Keith Drage <drageke@ntlworld.com> Sun, 10 May 2020 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <drageke@ntlworld.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E92533A0BDA for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 May 2020 14:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ntlworld.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KfDSRz9ugpm9 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 May 2020 14:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from know-smtprelay-omc-9.server.virginmedia.net (know-smtprelay-omc-9.server.virginmedia.net [80.0.253.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B11B33A0BE8 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 May 2020 14:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.17] ([81.97.229.170]) by cmsmtp with ESMTPA id XtVhjO94lf1r6XtVhjYiU2; Sun, 10 May 2020 22:29:21 +0100
X-Originating-IP: [81.97.229.170]
X-Authenticated-User: drageke@ntlworld.com
X-Spam: 0
X-Authority: v=2.3 cv=DOmhHRFb c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=uMkRna9mZ6QJhuoPpEZIww==:117 a=uMkRna9mZ6QJhuoPpEZIww==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=RYBTwSCaLHl9b7ab2XwA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ntlworld.com; s=meg.feb2017; t=1589146161; bh=JUF6rfdXyDPRVV9rXeaifWBVa+yGuUTAQSnbTNRUwgU=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=M8+ihtAEe1xUga9ngBZ3Nf7WbXQwXMroRNis4XJW5YLu+xg8Ey6ODemiALAUaueFT PCdVuwzQRq+lHND0708ByVS+gLDscVaInMk6HlViGoCkmOXl6ywaxU/isSH+VjCXD8 9D9+Ttft7twHNXUolgPiYEvriC2593uc0jb0RKkA5ABNOqDXDeSxqZ20vUSfL3axRu GZNYlz4Andt6GDx91hffS2ftLZATALyc2VV5H8+9j09GEcRl77g/O2TCtQP67F14H8 eWsd77cV63dhq0GtSP07Dz+VsP04rMzDAx/e3yj1eiw1UoMVD1Wqj39aPi7y31X9ih uB9D6sLaVyXgQ==
To: sipcore@ietf.org
References: <20200510131235.8E2A6C0171@smtp.hushmail.com> <854d7cef-03eb-8974-9159-c493df015996@alum.mit.edu>
From: Keith Drage <drageke@ntlworld.com>
Message-ID: <8414733e-a5d9-2502-6a89-d6460d931be9@ntlworld.com>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 22:29:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <854d7cef-03eb-8974-9159-c493df015996@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfPMieHrFR9XiOxj/bmMjZVZG9QNSAeJ5hcVMRHeoaRlFKMa5XjbS1axSRCSQ0E7qg29OQ1enqCOpfBgfRkELkioIfANPTahiMvn7/HQjAO1XKJBnhccF Ee/dqCadWGZSxUUI8hQ5zZ+eEcvNTZy8jBChqrCe3L7WoAozhqnqra9h
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/1UBo-75-grTu3Kf4-uXjuQ16oVM>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Session Timers (RFC 4028) for REFER, PUBLISH, MESSAGE not defined
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipcore/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 21:29:26 -0000

I dont know whether we reached something we can formally describe as a 
decision, but the overall opion was that it should be the text that 
should normatively describe what the requirements were for the actions 
in respect of inclusion in messages. If these tables were included, they 
should be clearly described as informative.

Further, the normative text should be adequately worded to encompass the 
understanding what happened when new messages were invented - so rather 
than specifically listing messages, it should probably talk about 
messages that create a dialog, etc.


Keith


On 10/05/2020 17:59, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 5/10/20 9:12 AM, Samir Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>    The table mentioned in Section 4 in RFC 4028 does not contain 
>> entries for REFER, PUBLISH and MESSAGE methods Below is the table 
>> from Section 4
>>
>>
>> +---------------+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>     |     Header |where|proxy|ACK|BYE|CAN|INV|OPT|REG|PRA|UPD|SUB|NOT|
>> +---------------+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>     |Session-Expires|  R  | amr | - | - | - | o | - | - | - | o | - | 
>> - |
>>     |               |     |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | |   |   |
>>     |Session-Expires| 2xx | ar  | - | - | - | o | - | - | - | o | - | 
>> - |
>>     |               |     |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | |   |   |
>>     |Min-SE         |  R  | amr | - | - | - | o | - | - | - | o | - | 
>> - |
>>     |               |     |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | |   |   |
>>     |Min-SE         | 422 |     | - | - | - | m | - | - | - | m | - | 
>> - |
>> +---------------+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>
>>    They are not applicable for these, but it would have been better 
>> if it is said categorically.
>
> IIRC, quite a long time ago it was decided that this table in 3261 was 
> a bad idea, because it is essentially a summary of normative language 
> in other sections of the document and is necessarily an approximation.
>
> After that, other work that updates and extends 3261 has been 
> inconsistent it whether it updates the table or not.
>
> What we should be careful of is that the in progress update to session 
> timers is clear, normatively and expositively,  one way or another.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email