Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-clarifications-03.txt
Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com> Tue, 12 August 2014 12:48 UTC
Return-Path: <aallen@blackberry.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3788E1A0862 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham
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 sAdCMEitAjLT for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-p01.blackberry.com (smtp-p01.blackberry.com [208.65.78.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365171A0842 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xct103cnc.rim.net ([10.65.161.203]) by mhs212cnc.rim.net with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 12 Aug 2014 08:48:25 -0400
Received: from XCT112CNC.rim.net (10.65.161.212) by XCT103CNC.rim.net (10.65.161.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:48:24 -0400
Received: from XMB122CNC.rim.net ([fe80::28c6:fa1c:91c6:2e23]) by XCT112CNC.rim.net ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:48:24 -0400
From: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Ivo Sedlacek <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-clarifications-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPqrHlmnmUsyWPWkiMyO8iEueSdZu3Zw8AgAAHa4CAAU4pgIAAXqcAgBPlYaA=
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:48:24 +0000
Message-ID: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233991B539@XMB122CNC.rim.net>
References: <20140728221604.19558.73431.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <53D6CC3D.4000005@nostrum.com> <39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B310790061011270A76B@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <53D7BB5D.5010402@nostrum.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233991419A@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <53D92314.6040607@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <53D92314.6040607@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.160.250]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233991B539XMB122CNCrimnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/kmNHGznJDQs9nceJ-pHblmXUn-c
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-clarifications-03.txt
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 12 Aug 2014 12:48:29 -0000
Re-engaging in this thread after taking some vacation time. In my view if we accept the concept that a UAS has a policy not to accept any REFER that would create an implicit subscription that means we accept the concept that UAS that support REFER method don’t interoperate (and therefore are not backwards compatible with) basic RFC 3515 UACs that don’t support the new extensions. IMHO that is not a road we ought to go down. Andrew From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:54 PM To: Andrew Allen; Adam Roach; Ivo Sedlacek; sipcore@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-clarifications-03.txt On 7/30/14, 10:33 AM, Andrew Allen wrote: I have a general concern with the direction this is now going. I don't think you have the backwards-compatibility concern quite right, but I agree that the current wording isn't there yet. Are we now saying here that it’s OK for a UA that supports receiving REFER to arbitrarily reject any REFER that would create a subscription (i.e be incompatible with RFC 3515 UACs by basically not supporting RFC 3515 UAS compliant behavior)? No, _this_ document is not defining new behavior. It's only clarifying what's already defined. According to RFC 3515 2.4.4 Using SIP Events to Report the Results of the Reference The NOTIFY mechanism defined in [2] MUST be used to inform the agent sending the REFER of the status of the reference. Therefore the ability to create an implicit subscription when accepting FWIW, Accepting is the key word here. a REFER is mandatory behavior in RFC 3515 and is expected to be supported by all RFC 3515 UACs I think before agreeing any wording here we should have a general discussion on the principle of whether these extensions that allow UACs to request that no implicit subscription can be effectively required by REFER UAS to be supported at the UAC. This, and what you have below, is a discussion we definitely need to have as part of the extension document. It is not necessary to wait for that discussion to complete the clarifications document that talks about what the specs say _now_. My discomfort with the current text is that we've made it complex to make it so that we don't have to update the document once the proposed extensions exist. There are NO currently standardized cases where the exemption in the current text would be invoked, and I don't think people are trying to argue there are - I'm hearing that to get there, they expect to invoke the yet-to-be-defined extension. So, lets go back to the slightly longer sentence that led to this: A UA that will accept a subscription-creating REFER request needs to include a GRUU as the Contact in all INVITE requests to ensure out-of-dialog REFER requests related to any dialog created by the INVITE arrive at this UA. In an attempt to be future-proof, that's introducing the potential for confusion about what the current standards define. Let's remove that confusion. Here's a proposed replacement, taking Adam's sentence simplification into account: A UA that will accept a REFER request needs to include a GRUU in the Contact header field of all INVITE requests. This ensures that out-of-dialog REFER requests corresponding to any resulting INVITE dialogs arrive at this UA. Future extensions [draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-explicitsub] might relax this requirement by defining a REFER request that cannot create an implicit subscription. Unless I hear objection soon, I'll rev the draft with that content. If so then I think we will need a new sip options tag (e.g REFER-NOSUB) to be used in place of the REFER options tag so that a RFC 3515 compliant UA that expects a NOTIFY to be sent upon receipt of a REFER and that includes an Accept-Contact request to reach a UA that supports REFER doesn’t end up at a UAS that doesn’t support compliant RFC 3515 behavior and ends up having its REFER requests rejected. My own view is that we should keep with the principle of backward compatibility and that even when these no automatic subscription extensions are supported that full support for RFC 3515 behavior is continued. Andrew From: sipcore [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam Roach Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:19 AM To: Ivo Sedlacek; Robert Sparks; sipcore@ietf.org<mailto:sipcore@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-clarifications-03.txt On 7/29/14 09:52, Ivo Sedlacek wrote: Thus, the text should state: In general, UAs that support receiving >>and accepting an out-of-dialog<< REFER request >>corresponding to a dialog established by an INVITE request<< need to include a GRUU in the Contact header field of >>the<< INVITE request. This ensures that out-of-dialog REFER requests corresponding to any resulting INVITE dialogs are routed to the correct user agent. UAs that will never create a implicit subscription in response to a REFER (that is, those that will reject any REFER that might result in an implicit subscription) are exempted from this behavior. I helped with the phrasing here, and one of the goals here was to make the first sentence cover the vast majority of the cases (hence "in general"), with the exceptional cases described later. The problem was that the overall concept was getting lost in a maze of twisty clauses: the clarification had become worse than the source text; it was actually more confusing. Your proposal returns it to this very confusing state, and is way, way out into the realm of exceptional cases. So I'll counterpropose: In general, UAs that support receiving REFER requests need to include a GRUU in the Contact header field of all INVITE requests. This ensures that out-of-dialog REFER requests corresponding to any resulting INVITE dialogs are routed to the correct user agent. UAs that will not create a implicit subscription in response to a REFER for the resulting dialog(s) -- that is, those that will reject a corresponding REFER that might result in an implicit subscription -- are exempted from this behavior. /a
- [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft… Robert Sparks
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Adam Roach
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Andrew Allen
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Robert Sparks
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Adam Roach
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… OKUMURA Shinji
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Robert Sparks
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Andrew Allen
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Andrew Allen
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… OKUMURA Shinji
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Robert Sparks
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Andrew Allen
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Andrew Allen
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Robert Sparks
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Robert Sparks
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Adam Roach
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Robert Sparks
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Adam Roach
- Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for d… Ivo Sedlacek