IETF Logo Mail Archive

[sipcore] Happy Eyeballs for SIP - Technical recommendations

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Tue, 20 December 2016 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
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 8912B129635 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:17:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 8aq3fxhtDN0p for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:17:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:41]) (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 2FF2C12962E for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:17:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.105]) by resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id JRmTcWnxTuazMJRmpcBiku; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:17:27 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([24.60.114.4]) by resomta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id JRmncgosonS0qJRmocepTu; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:17:27 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id uBKLGP02025934; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:16:25 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id uBKLGNvl025926; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:16:23 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <2E1B0F72-7438-4EA3-B39A-24969494B981@edvina.net> (oej@edvina.net)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:16:23 -0500
Message-ID: <878traxpw8.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfPFynNGNJNYPXFDnm3p3tduPx3v/DbvhKyjBJi1A8YcMqBLptUMX5MogitGDsUYsxB+WM+fj6CagXlKMEJrd4O+DnW41yerO4h4Z01IdLGBVSYgWdcR3 M77kAL0WEtOsM/fRqBbXzSFiB1WAZ42Ul0EE/x1/wO0ij+ff+wERDFMP6IXeB6aOz9uSuyBe2n//Gw==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/B_RuWhjpujCSWFGn2RgzdHCy3LE>
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: [sipcore] Happy Eyeballs for SIP - Technical recommendations
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:17:29 -0000

"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> writes:
> In regards to the current draft for connection-oriented SIP flows, I
> am not happy about copying a lot of text from the Happy Eyeballs RFC
> into this doc.
>
> Happy Eyeballs is a large solution space and the important part of the
> RFC is the requirements - the solutions vary.  Copying text from that
> RFC could mean we copy stuff that is out of scope and already old
> compared with today's implementations and that we by accident limit
> the solution space for SIP, which would be unfortunate. The SIP
> solution for setting up a connection is in no way different from other
> protocols and thus I think we will be better off and have a smoother
> path to publication by just pointing to the Happy Eyeballs RFC than
> starting to copy parts without us authors having current
> implementation experience.

Ultimately, what goes into this draft/RFC is the working group's
decision.  But in the mean time, we can check that we've got a correct
understanding of this tranche of the problem, so that decision becomes
essentially editorial rather than technical:

- Have we got the separation of requirements and solutions right?  The
  requirements (on SIP devices) should be stated with MUST.  Solution
  advice should be stated with SHOULD or even non-normative language.

- Have we got up-to-date recommendations for the solutions?  Most of the
  current language is copied from RFC 6555.  Are there known improvements
  on that of wide applicability?

- Are the recommendations that are relevant for SIP but not for HTTP,
  and thus are new relative to RFC 6555, properly done?  (This is
  section 5 in draft-worley-sip-he-connection-01.)

So far, we haven't had much discussion of the technical content.

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email