IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] Proposal to revise the dual stack milestone

"Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com> Mon, 01 May 2017 07:21 UTC

Return-Path: <tasveren@sonusnet.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 28AC7126B6D for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 May 2017 00:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=sonusnetworks.onmicrosoft.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 7yk_ik13zRVW for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 May 2017 00:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-126.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-126.mimecast.com [216.205.24.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E556F1293E0 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 May 2017 00:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=SonusNetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-sonusnet-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=itlLL0dAXB6fug1vn/714yqkkxIjXzB+BxDWO1zPahY=; b=plTlWd692euV7jXs0Ivxk58FWzl27mAoXO8ybd+YmI8XAL9/UrgaFVcnX20xLithFJ3k3zioGm1mQplrV9A40qzVYRVPSYCL09Wqy7fpRj9w9KtcQbwfILbv+KlxIkk5Uukk3nAg6NhJtZTUFtkHfIPQwMWWE6ieQPJSsU866YU=
Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam02lp0019.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.180.19]) (Using TLS) by us-smtp-1.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-151-jVD9j0QZMueTkhLvjGUZ2A-1; Mon, 01 May 2017 03:18:17 -0400
Received: from SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.210.141) by SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.210.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1061.12; Mon, 1 May 2017 07:18:15 +0000
Received: from SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.210.141]) by SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.210.141]) with mapi id 15.01.1061.021; Mon, 1 May 2017 07:18:14 +0000
From: "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Proposal to revise the dual stack milestone
Thread-Index: AQHSwfMkaim5598Vpk+qqnple4/tO6HfELKw
Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 07:18:14 +0000
Message-ID: <SN2PR03MB2350EF19DEF8578C7BD35002B2140@SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <87bmrdmxo0.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
In-Reply-To: <87bmrdmxo0.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [73.29.18.75]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN2PR03MB2350; 7:RWefngCYN39Vcv5IV+aVyuTaR213xIR1LDvQzWFLy5T69DRxBymxaY6XBxItBY8QN+U5WLzfUeKOA0+QW/2x3pF2NL0twS98B6nXgnXZ8WSLguAg14uKAALUpOX4Lg67IO9yKWm0p07t7rkAbPUUAHwCi2/C9E+QVcCTOgdGyaT5MhVMIQYDRt6+Nsf9dZl4+goecHeMz6kUubrXTzLOa+87wd8YgOeEely3Kja8kUzap0STNUd6vKlzpP7om2ukvuj8HnuREHN8R2JVo+Yk9jXSvo3iJn5H9FXNqxhcETOMfIzmks8g4TDINlctKhlqS5pP9BRMUGW7Al60AkccUg==; 20:vbWL+3e40uRiOU+40Wl2gb8kG9zBOvPvjW0/RBRM/G7vpfb67+ZVEYXQeQ5JcWL2G6MOWZVNuI5Ncd9V9gN2QbZMsMRYifsSgr9WS10PgmLQMSEqpmhzPW4oVby7Ky3U+KimbzgQ/fyPQpfrsbhsXkjxtNVJc/cQIp8+C5xmKe4=
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3f7ca707-07fa-43bc-6621-08d490623bc1
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075); SRVR:SN2PR03MB2350;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN2PR03MB2350EA49D7300FE08B94868DB2140@SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041248)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558100)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:SN2PR03MB2350; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN2PR03MB2350;
x-forefront-prvs: 02945962BD
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(39410400002)(39450400003)(39400400002)(39830400002)(13464003)(377454003)(5660300001)(102836003)(3846002)(6116002)(478600001)(2501003)(66066001)(53546009)(25786009)(8676002)(86362001)(305945005)(7736002)(74316002)(81166006)(8936002)(3280700002)(3660700001)(7696004)(33656002)(229853002)(6306002)(55016002)(2906002)(2900100001)(53936002)(9686003)(99286003)(54356999)(76176999)(6436002)(561944003)(189998001)(122556002)(38730400002)(2950100002)(77096006)(6506006)(50986999); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:SN2PR03MB2350; H:SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: sonusnet.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 May 2017 07:18:14.7725 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 29a671dc-ed7e-4a54-b1e5-8da1eb495dc3
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN2PR03MB2350
X-MC-Unique: jVD9j0QZMueTkhLvjGUZ2A-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="WINDOWS-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/TPGg3mp3xeVJGDdFxAs12TGAuXk>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Proposal to revise the dual stack milestone
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 01 May 2017 07:21:07 -0000

I think that is a good idea with a few caveats:

i- Connectionless transports should be covered as well (possibly by making use of OPTIONS)
ii- Use of multiple interfaces/transport protocols should be mentioned as well. I think this can be done just by adding a few sentences along the lines of:
All IP Address Family/Transport Family/Interface triplet combinations should be tried simultaneously. Some headstart may be provided for certain combinations depending on local policy.

Otherwise I think it is the right approach not to dive into details of the algorithm to use. 

Thanks,
Tolga

-----Original Message-----
From: sipcore [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dale R. Worley
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 4:46 PM
To: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: [sipcore] Proposal to revise the dual stack milestone

The Sipcore working group has the following milestone listed (at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/about/):

Dec 2017        Request publication of mechanisms for rapid dual-stack
                protocol selection in SIP

The draft draft-johansson-sip-he-connection is listed for this milestone.  However, that draft covers only a narrow subset of the overall problem.

Over the past month or so, I have been canvassing Sipcore members to find out if there is any practical demand for a dual-stack solution for SIP.  With the exception of a particular case, I have found no interest.

Because of this, I propose that we narrow the scope of this milestone to the one case for which I have found interest:

        Request publication of a mechanism for rapid dual-stack
        protocol selection in SIP when the destination has multiple,
        unprioritized targets for connection-oriented protocols

Conveniently, draft-johansson-sip-he-connection describes such a mechanism.  Its mechanism closely parallels that of RFC 6555 ("Happy Eyeballs"), and the text is essentially complete.  Because there are no unresolved technical issues, the text is complete, and there are known implementation instances where this mechanism is needed, I urge the approval of this draft even if its scope is narrow.

Dale

_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
sipcore@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email