[sipcore] SIP Digest - Open Issue
Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 09 March 2017 14:03 UTC
Return-Path: <rifaat.ietf@gmail.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 38CB3129631 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 06:03:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=gmail.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 DKMYWt4JBkSI for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 06:03:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x231.google.com (mail-ua0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD7AF129630 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 06:03:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x231.google.com with SMTP id u30so81330760uau.0 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 06:03:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=fW16p8ipHMprbsP+CPvJHhVTVMD1olLI2ugu44t7/PM=; b=uVOutQ9QFiKIhxFp3LIYfMP5vlx2M5EpWwH9fMLpFfXsvs39iZGlUMtoFzLUaZgWbh LWtNPrSXEcrvrC3S9cyTGf0JtRHiNbolqXI1WSvfukL+hL3c0Aapp//E43PhbwCIrs9o w7HonPAN+xB6lesQAl+EzELOtB12LRVmywRLhb0TSZnoYBy6VyRv6RMuKQKNstnFf2D7 nKxcOQkCrA48JRHUHBzSWHN6rg/N/uSPARLjYjXfgZb2PHK0YCMA4lznmdUKLR+NQib6 XxD9OhCqlXlllMTnINgE3RfiXqtpsDY5qSQUxwMPLETID7Gvhm3BJDmvJ+XJetFYveYJ HsWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=fW16p8ipHMprbsP+CPvJHhVTVMD1olLI2ugu44t7/PM=; b=rEIGK9n6lnec9DiMY3r/NNEU7Ppa+d+91K4SmRpnUgo/sXwd/XwSrwrJJqfb/d1bwP +AOVPzA1aZEGwRySgrkPc7UAhW+Vp2HW/VyL61MRVgaqy3u+XKnNUXHJSNhtS65mWg7w 635F5anatlmSW9a0wR58vcPwS3FTKcNhAgYpVpmaWI2jTmkrQV3qVk5+Ucddq+rbCevd VUgI+4RK7Swqa2MARGeZhwaxbQaN1qfVM/Sr7Dp3+oGl/p3WsWeaBsIdDy3s8E2XmvWm bd5toaE4ehyUL+pKJT3etbFJrxNcOxXr7QSpitTNeBIGhnpkXruSF0EbQHBYyDd6YQRp N12g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kKETNvft++5JWNNuGWcbhiJ1D6V3tz42H8idLW6+h7WuVosCf1nfrWPAjHzravC8RrjcOM1FtAsKdBaQ==
X-Received: by 10.176.16.23 with SMTP id f23mr7238217uab.99.1489068217825; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 06:03:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.52.146 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 06:03:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 09:03:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGL6ep+U+ozQgx+QCPo9JNAXA91L+ZV56ooUsUsJcQ3tuL5Xdw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045e1d642b7dac054a4cb688"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/fwZ3OjkiQZE7Dr8MX2--rRP7jmI>
Subject: [sipcore] SIP Digest - Open Issue
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: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 14:03:40 -0000
Hi, There is an open issue around the Digest draft and I would like to get some thoughts from the WG about it: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yusef-sipcore-digest-scheme/ The issue is related to section 2.5 Forking: Is this a real use case? if so, the current text calls for the proxy to aggregate the responses and for the UAC to respond to the the ones it support; is this a reasonable approach? Appreciate any thoughts about this. Regards, Rifaat
- [sipcore] SIP Digest - Open Issue Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [sipcore] SIP Digest - Open Issue Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [sipcore] SIP Digest - Open Issue Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [sipcore] SIP Digest - Open Issue Asveren, Tolga