Re: [sipcore] Open issues in draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-09

Hi Inaki,

Open Item 2 comment: The current statement states that 

     " All SIP elements MUST implement at least one of the following:

      *  Both UDP and TCP transports.

      *  SIP WebSocket transport."

I could not understand how this update resolve the issue in the following scenario:

 SIP UA1 (WS only)----Proxy-----SIP UA2 (UDP/TCP)

Here, the dialog is established with contact details for SIP UA1 & SIP UA2 as follows:

1) contact: sip:sipua1@example.com;transport=ws
2) contact: sip:sipua2@example.com;transport=tcp

In case SIP UA2 wishes to send RE-INVITE towards SIP UA1, how does it possible now as per the current update in Sec 5.2.4 of draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-09.

Apart from this, I'm fine with stating in the draft or new draft wherein this draft is updated with new draft reference.

Thanks
Partha 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 1:29 PM
> To: SIPCORE (Session Initiation Protocol Core) WG
> Subject: [sipcore] Open isues in draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-09
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Once  draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-09 has been submitted, and
> after some comments in the WG, I consider that there are still the
> following open issues (to be addressed in a new revision):
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Remove "_This section is non-normative_" text at the top of
> non-normative sections.
> 
> Those sections don't contain normative keywords (MUST, SHOULD) so they
> are indeed non-normative. No need for such an statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Decide whether the draft updates 3261 or not.
> 
> After recent discussion in the WG my opinion is that if somebody wants
> to build a SIP UDP and/or TCP device during 2013 year, he does not
> need to read draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket, and thus the draft does
> not update RFC 3261.
> 
> The other point of view is that the draft makes implementation of both
> UDP and TCP transports non mandatory if WS is implemented. This opens
> the door to two solutions:
> 
> a) Stating that in the draft (as currently it does).
> 
> b) A new WG item for allowing other transports without requiring
> UDP/TCP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-09 we have tryed to address all
> the other open issues reported by members of the WG after 08 was
> published. I hope changes and additions in 09 satisfy their concerns.
> Otherwise please let us know and we will address them in rev 10.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot to all.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore