Re: [sipcore] WG adoption Request

Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com> Fri, 20 October 2023 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dean.willis@softarmor.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 4211AC151071 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 13:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 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_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=softarmor.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NwIAs47BahWf for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 13:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-4018.proton.ch (mail-4018.proton.ch [185.70.40.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 502BCC14CE52 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 13:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=softarmor.com; s=protonmail3; t=1697832159; x=1698091359; bh=CNPpba6RQqF9aOG3kPJk+My6YLFR79FpW/nyZ9OR3Nk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=Dwp/m+hvb3EkRsRf5Ti+T7ZSwlYXuzaM9px/MAEynavhPyxXSMYE+lezGsQp3v7C6 sviIPyWnb+si94hcak2O8h4M/QLQK89KBL3Fftr8q2yFw1EbV1gQpdXfqVTRfEuhMN T2XB62hp8qZkA1b0ToNOL74dQlVD+S13QrLXBFyIHAgCprQcyUs7lFIUVMBmG08T1Q uD3uXoidrWIoMEmbXIxLQmVfs6y8xsJmk2xhaDwWhU8OJ0uAzAAgxBEouJTPWamPmS u5IRof7BHyXqTmHjvtNgeioPSjAhf//ZzRZXtWnU14gLojrt/W4klE+XoSgc8aBRL3 mC0uxomGZJa8A==
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:02:32 +0000
To: sipcore@ietf.org
From: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
Message-ID: <40911AD8-2C9F-4B32-91A0-A9247435F265@softarmor.com>
In-Reply-To: <87v8bnu1qs.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
References: <87v8bnu1qs.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Feedback-ID: 30044069:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/FdlBmy5xaAOpUVa8gkWrb45yCAo>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] WG adoption Request
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:02:48 -0000

Dale illustrates the basic mistake we’re making here, which is once again conflating the protocol state machine with the state machine of the application using the protocol. There’s no good reason to add a new response code that would semi-break existing SIP stacks just to convey a failure reason that, historically, we have other mechanisms for dealing with (like a 480 response with a Reason code).

But hey, it wouldn’t be the first cross-layer design error we’ve made in this particular cheese maze.

—
Dean


> On Oct 3, 2023, at 11:09 AM, worley@ariadne.com wrote:
> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khatri-sipcore-call-transfer-fail-response/
> 
> One point of concern is that this proposal needs to be useful within SIP
> as it is deployed.  Given the discussion I've seen so far, it's not
> clear operators (either PSTN or simpler SIP-over-Internet) feel
> sufficient need for this functionality to deploy it.
> 
> I also have serious questions about the detailed failure codes.  Why,
> after all, should "video call" or "real time text call" be causes of
> failure?  SIP handles all media types symmetrically and yet the current
> text wants to categorize calls according to the media they handle.  This
> is especially relevant because a call transfer always in media
> renegotiation, and so the active media after the transfer might be
> different than the active media before the transfer.
> 
> (Thinking more about this, I can imagine the fuss that deaf/real-time
> text advocate Iljitsch van Beijnum would kick up:  You can transfer
> voice calls but transfers of RTT calls are rejected!  (It's actually
> conceivable that being unable to transfer RTT calls would be classified
> as a violation of US anti-discrimination law.))
> 
> I also object to the current use of "granular" to mean "detailed" or
> "fine-grained", but that's less important.
> 
> Dale
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore