Re: [Sipping] Request for Open discussion about SIP mobility

Haruki Izumikawa <izumikawa@kddilabs.jp> Thu, 08 May 2008 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <sipping-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sipping-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sipping-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A8928D700; Thu, 8 May 2008 08:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5DD228D19D for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2008 08:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NXT-BYIncG8d for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2008 08:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (unknown [IPv6:2001:200:601:12:230:48ff:fe22:3a84]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124EF28D0D8 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2008 06:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B8AEC8EA; Thu, 8 May 2008 22:46:45 +0900 (JST)
Received: from wcg.radio.kddilabs.jp (wcg.radio.kddilabs.jp [172.19.84.3]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44F3EC915; Thu, 8 May 2008 22:46:44 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dhcp160.east-3f.cn.kddilabs.jp [172.19.126.160]) by wcg.radio.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2A1160047; Thu, 8 May 2008 22:46:44 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <48230468.9010602@kddilabs.jp>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 22:47:20 +0900
From: Haruki Izumikawa <izumikawa@kddilabs.jp>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it>
References: <4819667D.9060600@kddilabs.jp> <4822CD69.5070205@uniroma2.it>
In-Reply-To: <4822CD69.5070205@uniroma2.it>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new
Cc: SIPPING LIST <sipping@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Request for Open discussion about SIP mobility
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org

Dear Stefano,

Thank you for your interest. I have reviewed your updated I-Ds. As you 
pointed, I also think that we share common requirements and scenarios.

I understand the addition of a new SIP header could not be a major 
concern. In fact, I have proposed a new SIP header for bicasting before. 
But, I'm afraid that the addition of a new SIP header falls into terms 
of reference of SIP WG, not SIPPING WG. How do you feel about it?

Best wishes,

Haruki


Stefano Salsano wrote:
> Dear Haruki,
> 
> thank you for restarting discussion on SIP mobility. I agree with the
> importance to discuss this topic in this WG.
> 
> I'd like to bring again to the attention of the WG two related internet
> drafts that we submitted some time ago and that we've now updated
> 
> [1] Requirements for vertical handover of multimedia sessions using SIP 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-niccolini-sipping-siphandover-03
> 
> [2] A solution for vertical handover of multimedia sessions using SIP 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-salsano-sipping-siphandover-solution-02
> 
> Now I would like in particular to focus on the requirements draft [1] 
> and to make some comparison with your work.
> 
> It seems that the requirements and scenarios we consider are largely
> overlapping (while we take different approaches for solutions).
> 
> We have in common the idea of letting the Correspondant Node as much as
> possible not involved in the seamless handover procedure and the
> introduction of some sort of B2BUA to assist in the procedure. We also
> share the idea that bi-casting can improve the handover and needs to be
> properly managed.
> 
> As you have already outlined in your draft, a difference in the
> requirements is that you would like not to introduce new
> headers/parameters while we allow it.
> 
> My point here is that the introduction of the new headers in our
> scenario only concerns the handover-capable mobile device and the
> intermediate element which is in charge to assist in the handover
> procedure. Correspondant Node and all other SIP elements are not touched
> anyhow. I feel that in any case there the need to implement a lot of
> specicif logic to properly handle the bi-casting (not to mention the
> problem of discovery of intermediate element that you deliberately
> neglect in your draft to simplify the problem). Therefore the addition
> of a new header may not be the biggest issue.
> 
> Anyway these aspects could be clarified with some deeper technical
> discussion, which I hope can start in the WG.
> 
> Best regards,
> Stefano
> 
> Haruki Izumikawa wrote:
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> I'd like to have an open discussion about SIP-based mobility in this ML.
>> Mobility managements using SIP have been actively studied and developed
>> worldwide since "Mobility Support Using SIP" (by Elin and Henning) was
>> published. SIP-based mobility would have strong advantages such as its
>> great affinity for an application as well as flexibility, i.e., terminal
>> mobility can be optimally supported independent from underlying network.
>> On the other hand, despite many advantages, it is not used for
>> large-scale commercial yet. In addition, the discussion about SIP-based
>> mobility in IETF seems to be undynamic.
>> These days, a multimode terminal is getting popular. Each access
>> networks, e.g., cellular and WLAN, have different characteristics in
>> terms of throughput or delay. In such a heterogeneous network, SIP
>> becomes more useful tool for mobility management because of its
>> flexibility. The quality of a multimedia service can be adaptively
>> changed in accordance with a nature of an access networks even after
>> changing an access network. I think it is time to resume discussing
>> about SIP-based mobility. For your information, I have submitted I-D
>> regarding seamless session handoff by SIP-based bicasting.
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-izumikawa-sipping-sipbicast-01.txt 
>>
>> I would be happy to hear frank opinions of SIP specialists.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Haruki
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Haruki Izumikawa
KDDI R&D Laboratories


_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP