Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-clarifications-03.txt
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Thu, 07 August 2014 17:55 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.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 240411A01C8 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 SI7W3n2F_X4T for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 EEA041A0197 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-173-57-89-168.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.89.168]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s77HsjwI047591 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Thu, 7 Aug 2014 12:54:46 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-173-57-89-168.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.89.168] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <53E3BD65.5080105@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 12:54:45 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ivo Sedlacek <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com>, Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
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> <39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B310790061011270B9E1@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B310790061011270BA18@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B310790061011270C376@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B310790061011270C376@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030707020507060202010003"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/kytSthOm1wWGpcHZxFvg0sBwngc
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: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:55:03 -0000
I've spent quite some time trying to understand the push for the proposal below, and I really think there's confusion, so I'm going to try to step up a level and see if we can make progress there. A UA such as your proposed exception clause describes is simply not a compliant 6665 implementation which is what this clarification document is about. If it accepts in-dialog subscription creating REFERs it is following 3265, not 6665 - further it is violating a 6665 requirement. If it accepts no REFERs whatsoever, then it's not affected by this document. If the point of the wordsmithing is to make legacy implementations compliant with 6665, there's no way to succeed - they simply aren't. If that's not the point of the wordsmithing, what is? At the moment, I think what I sent below is still the right path forward. RjS On 8/1/14, 1:44 AM, Ivo Sedlacek wrote: > > Any comments on the proposal below? > > Kind regards > > Ivo Sedlacek > > If a REFER request is accepted (that is, a 2xx class response is > > returned), the recipient MUST create a subscription and send > > notifications of the status of the refer as described in Section > > 2.4.4.*From:*sipcore [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of > *Ivo Sedlacek > *Sent:* 31. července 2014 9:26 > *To:* Robert Sparks; Andrew Allen; Adam Roach; sipcore@ietf.org > <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [sipcore] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-clarifications-03.txt > > Hello, > > According to the draft, the purpose of GRUU in Contact of INVITE > request to " > ensures that out-of-dialog REFER requests corresponding to any > resulting INVITE dialogs arrive at this UA." > > If a UA rejects any out-of-dialog REFER requests corresponding to any > dialogs related to an INVITE request, then setting up GRUU in Contact > of INVITE does not provide any purpose. > > This is true __regardless__ whether the UA supports and use the > draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-explicitsub. > > See attached mail giving an example of UA having two types of > sessions, Type_A transferrable by REFER, and Type_B not transferrable > by REFER. > > Given that different standardization organization has defined so many > enablers which can run on a single UA, I find it weird that one can > guarantee that the above cannot occur. > > Thus, I hesitate to mandate an unnecessary requirement influencing > possible existing UA implementations and I prefer to be explicit on > the exception for usage of GRUU in Contact of INVITE request: > > > 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.>>>UAs that will not accept any out-of-dialog REFER requests corresponding to dialog(s) created by an INVITE request > are exempted from including a GRUU in the Contact header field of the INVITE request.<<< > > Kind regards > > Ivo Sedlacek > > *From:*Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com] > *Sent:* 30. července 2014 18:54 > *To:* Andrew Allen; Adam Roach; Ivo Sedlacek; sipcore@ietf.org > <mailto: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