Re: [siprec] Session-id in SIPREC [Was RE: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - IETF telco on the 19th of October]

["Parthasarathi R (partr)" <[e-mail]>]

Paul/John,

Unique recording id is required for specific reasons as I mentioned in
the another mail thread:

SRC has to identify that CS are related to the single RS during the call
service like call transfer (REFER based). Usecase 4 illustrate the
change of CS change from Alice-Bob CS to Bob-carol CS and SRC has to
keep track of this change using UID.  Without UID, Bob-carol will be
considered as not part of the existing RS. This UID requirement requires
support of UA's involved in SIP recording. This is the common callflow
for call center deployment where agents will be keep changing within the
single session from the customer. 

The same id may be used for retrieving the session after the session is
completed. When it is used for retrieval, authorization policy has to be
applied. I thought of this identity as equivalent to webex recording
link after the conference is over. This information is not replacement
to inform UA about becoming recorded. 

Thanks
Partha 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat) 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:35 PM
To: Elwell, John
Cc: Parthasarathi R (partr); Hadriel Kaplan; Rosen, Brian;
[e-mail]; Ram Mohan R (rmohanr); Ken Rehor (krehor)
Subject: Re: Session-id in SIPREC [Was RE: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - IETF
telco on the 19th of October]

I'll join with John on this question. I don't know of any requirement to
inform CS participants of *how* to access the recording. In most use
cases that I am aware of, the participants are not provided with
permission nor any mechanism to access the recording.

Information that you are being recorded is more of a warning to be
careful what you say than it is an invitation to listen.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 11/2/2010 1:04 PM, Elwell, John wrote:
> Partha,
>
> Are we identifying a requirement to extend the notification to a party
that the call is being recorded by including with that notification an
identifier that can subsequently be used for retrieving the recording?
We don't know whether all parties should receive the same identifier, or
whether different parties should be given different identifiers for the
same recording.
>
> John (as individual)
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Parthasarathi R (partr) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 02 November 2010 16:45
>> To: Elwell, John; Hadriel Kaplan
>> Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); Rosen, Brian; [e-mail]; Ram Mohan

>> R (rmohanr); Ken Rehor (krehor)
>> Subject: RE: Session-id in SIPREC [Was RE: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - 
>> IETF telco on the 19th of October]
>>
>> John,
>>
>> Please read inline.
>>
>> Thank
>> Partha
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Elwell, John [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:59 PM
>> To: Parthasarathi R (partr); Hadriel Kaplan
>> Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); Rosen, Brian; [e-mail]; Ram Mohan

>> R (rmohanr); Ken Rehor (krehor)
>> Subject: RE: Session-id in SIPREC [Was RE: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - 
>> IETF telco on the 19th of October]
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Parthasarathi R (partr) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 01 November 2010 08:45
>>> To: Elwell, John; Hadriel Kaplan
>>> Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); Rosen, Brian; [e-mail];
>> Ram Mohan
>>> R (rmohanr); Ken Rehor (krehor)
>>> Subject: RE: Session-id in SIPREC [Was RE: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - 
>>> IETF telco on the 19th of October]
>>>
>>> As the starting time for the discussion, I attached 4 usecase and 
>>> requirement for SIPREC unique identifier. The usecases are
>>>
>>> 1) Two party basic callflow of SRC co-located in B2BUA
>> [JRE] This use case does not really illustrate any need for a unique 
>> identifier. It shows that the 4 entities involved (Alice, Bob, 
>> B2BUA/SRC and SRS) all receive the UID, but what do these entities 
>> use the UID for and what would be the consequences of some of the 
>> entities not receiving the UID? For example, if Alice and Bob are 
>> able to use the UID for later finding and replaying the recording, I 
>> guess that would be a good reason.
>>
>> <Partha>  The reason for this usecase is to illustrate that Call-id 
>> is not sufficient for UID and also as you mentioned to indicate the 
>> requirement in UA to replay using UID.</Partha>
>>
>>> 2) Two party call transfer flow of SRC co-located in UA
>> [JRE] In this case the Update_metadata flow seems to add a second CS 
>> under the umbrella of the same UID used for the first CS. So this 
>> would provide the SRS with a link between the two CSs. If Alice, Bob 
>> or Carol later wants to find and replay the recording, they can use 
>> the UID to find the recording of the set of CSs, and presumably can 
>> select a particular CS to replay or replay the two in sequence.
>> <Partha>  It is the primary motive for this callflow</Partha>
>>   However, do you really want Carol to find and replay the CS between

>> Alice and Bob, and do you want Bob to find and replay the CS between 
>> Alice and Carol? Perhaps that is just an authorization matter - it 
>> depends whether knowledge of the UID is considered sufficient 
>> authorisation to replay the set of CSs under that UID.
>>
>> <Partha>  I don't have put much details into authorization for each 
>> user.
>> It is an open issue. We will discuss in detail to understand the 
>> authorization SIPREC requirement to get more clarity.</Partha>
>>
>>> 3) Three party conference call flow of SRC co-located in UA
>> [JRE] A similar authorization question. Is Carol's knowledge of the 
>> UID sufficient to allow Alice to access the entire CS between Alice 
>> and Bob, even that part when Alice was not a party?
>>
>>> 4) Two party call transfer of SRC co-located in B2BUA
>> [JRE] Similar questions arise.
>>
>> So we need to be clear what the UID will be used for and what it will

>> not be used for.
>>
>> John (as individual)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Please provide your valuable comments on the document. I'll
>> update the
>>
>>> document based on the discussion in the e-mail thread.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Partha
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Elwell, John [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:59 PM
>>> To: Parthasarathi R (partr); Hadriel Kaplan
>>> Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); Rosen, Brian; [e-mail];
>> Ram Mohan
>>> R (rmohanr); Ken Rehor (krehor)
>>> Subject: RE: Session-id in SIPREC [Was RE: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - 
>>> IETF telco on the 19th of October]
>>>
>>> Partha,
>>>
>>> Thanks for offering to work on this. If there has been good
>> discussion
>>
>>> between now and Beijing, and if there are issues to discuss, we can 
>>> bash the agenda to make room.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Parthasarathi R (partr) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: 28 October 2010 12:36
>>>> To: Elwell, John; Hadriel Kaplan
>>>> Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); Rosen, Brian; [e-mail];
>>> Ram Mohan
>>>> R (rmohanr); Ken Rehor (krehor)
>>>> Subject: RE: Session-id in SIPREC [Was RE: [RAI] Minutes
>> of 3GPP -
>>>> IETF telco on the 19th of October]
>>>>
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> I'm of the same opinion that unique identifier mechanism will be 
>>>> outside the scope of SIPREC.
>>>>
>>>> ram-siprec-metadata model indicates the unique identifier
>> as an one
>>>> parameter in CS or CS group. Till now, metadata model is based on 
>>>> usecase and requirement in siprec-req. IMO, It will not provides 
>>>> usecases related to this unique identifier. Paul&  Ram,
>>> Please correct
>>>
>>>> me in case I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I had request lot of times for usecase document for the session 
>>>> id/SIPSCOTCH in Dispatch and send couple of usecase
>> related to the
>>>> same.
>>>> Most of the usecases are related to SIPREC as well. I'll
>>> come up with
>>>> usecases text and let us discuss in SIPREC through
>> mailing alias&
>>>> during IETF-79 meeting. Based on the discussion, Let us
>>> decide whether
>>>
>>>> it is required to have separate draft or adding it in any
>>> one of the
>>>> existing SIPREC draft. Please let me know your opinion on
>> the same.
>>>>
>>>> Please read inline for more comments
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Partha
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Elwell, John [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:42 PM
>>>> To: Parthasarathi R (partr); Hadriel Kaplan
>>>> Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); Rosen, Brian; [e-mail];
>>> Ram Mohan
>>>> R (rmohanr); Ken Rehor (krehor)
>>>> Subject: RE: Session-id in SIPREC [Was RE: [RAI] Minutes
>> of 3GPP -
>>>> IETF telco on the 19th of October]
>>>>
>>>> Partha,
>>>>
>>>> Hadriel's SIPSCOTCH proposal address the problem of a single 
>>>> identifier for the same call on both sides of a B2BUA such
>>> as an SBC.
>>>> I get the impression that what De Villiers is asking for is
>>> a means of
>>>
>>>> tying together two calls that are somehow linked, e.g.,
>> one arising
>>>> from the transfer of the other. The two calls would
>>> typically involve
>>>> the same remote party (a customer say), but the requirements are 
>>>> subtly different, e.g., tying together two calls on the
>>> same side of
>>>> an SBC, as opposed to tying together two halves of a call passing 
>>>> through an SBC.
>>>> It could be that the same solution will work for both (although I 
>>>> understand Hadriel's concerns, I think), but we have not really 
>>>> documented the problem in detail. For example, if agent A makes a 
>>>> consultation call to agent B, should that also have the
>>> same ID as the
>>>
>>>> original call and/or the call that eventually results
>> from transfer?
>>>>
>>>> <Partha>  This is one of the 3PCC usecase where the current
>>> session-id
>>>> solution will not work.</Partha>
>>>>
>>>> So in my opinion we need more - whether that can go straight into 
>>>> siprec-req, whether it needs to go into ram-siprec-metadata, or 
>>>> whether it merits its own draft, I am not sure. However, it
>>> is quite
>>>> likely that it would require a mechanism that would be
>> outside the
>>>> scope of SIPREC to specify, and hence having problem
>> statement and
>>>> requirements in a separate draft might be helpful.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Parthasarathi R (partr) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: 28 October 2010 09:59
>>>>> To: Elwell, John; Hadriel Kaplan
>>>>> Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); Rosen, Brian; [e-mail];
>>>> Ram Mohan
>>>>> R (rmohanr); Ken Rehor (krehor)
>>>>> Subject: Session-id in SIPREC [Was RE: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP
>>>>> - IETF telco on the 19th of October]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John,
>>>>>
>>>>> As discussed in the attached mail thread, B2BUA acts as
>>> SRC and SRC
>>>>> has to inform the set of  communication session using an unique 
>>>>> identifier, it can't be call-id and the proposal is to use
>>>> session-id.
>>>>
>>>>> In case you feel that the requirement and usecase is not
>>> clear from
>>>>> SIPREC perspective, We will add the requirement&  usecase
>>> in SIPREC
>>>>> requirement document itself. Please clarify whether
>>> separate ID is
>>>>> required for this unique recording id requirement?
>>>>>
>>>>> I like to hear from you whether two SRC for the single
>>> communication
>>>>> session(CS) is outside the scope of SIPREC or not. Because,
>>>> Recording
>>>>> session group in metadata model is removed  from metadata
>>>> draft that
>>>>> two SRC for single CS is outside the scope of SIPREC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Partha
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Elwell, John [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:22 PM
>>>>> To: Parthasarathi R (partr); Hadriel Kaplan
>>>>> Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); [e-mail]; Rosen, Brian
>>>>> Subject: RE: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - IETF telco on the 19th
>>>> of October
>>>>>
>>>>> Partha,
>>>>>
>>>>> First, as an individual, I am quite keen to see Hadriel's draft 
>>>>> progress, even if its scope is limited to troubleshooting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, as SIPREC chair, it is unclear to me that we have
>>>> in SIPREC a
>>>>> clear problem statement. For example, one form of the
>>>> problem that I
>>>>> could imagine is that two session recording clients (one
>>>> located at a
>>>>> first agent, say, and the other located at a second agent,
>>>> say) both
>>>>> generate recording sessions to a session recording server
>>> to record
>>>>> what are two separate communication sessions from the
>>>> perspective of
>>>>> the two clients. However, the communication sessions are
>>>> linked (i.e.,
>>>>
>>>>> part of the same thread) - perhaps the second session
>>> resulted from
>>>>> transfer of the first session from the first agent to
>> the second
>>>>> agent.
>>>>> Some form of
>>>>> ID is needed to correlate the two recordings when they
>> reach the
>>>>> session recording server. This is one possible form of the
>>>> problem -
>>>>> it may or may not be a valid problem and it may or may
>> not be the
>>>>> total problem concerning session IDs and SIPREC.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to see discussion of the problem statement on
>>>> the SIPREC
>>>>> mailing list, and ideally I would like to see an I-D on the
>>>> subject (I
>>>>
>>>>> think we need more than what we have in siprec-req). If
>> we have a
>>>>> clear problem statement and requirements, then we can
>> attempt to
>>>>> address the problem either in SIPREC or elsewhere in RAI, as 
>>>>> appropriate. In my opinion it is too early to say whether
>>> Hadriel's
>>>>> draft fulfils a SIPREC need.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Parthasarathi R (partr) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>> Sent: 28 October 2010 07:21
>>>>>> To: Hadriel Kaplan
>>>>>> Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); [e-mail]; Elwell, John
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - IETF telco on the 19th
>>>>> of October
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hadriel,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm reading your mail like IETF has to add "n" number of
>>>>> correlation
>>>>>> id header based upon the usage.  we need to create the
>>>>> correlation id
>>>>>> like troubleshoot-id: xxxxx,
>>>>>> recording-cs-id: xxxxxx individually. In case everybody
>>>>> feels so, I'm
>>>>>> fine with the approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still, I'm not getting your concern w.r.t SIPREC
>>>> correlation id and
>>>>>> why SIPREC session id will not be passed across in SIP
>>>> devices but
>>>>>> trouble-shoot-id will? Please elaborate in this mail
>>> thread or in
>>>>>> SIPREC IETF alias.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my experience with unique SIP session identification
>>>>> (cisco-guid),
>>>>>> the current proposed "session-id" will not work for
>>>> number of 3PCC
>>>>>> callflows. In case you feel that troubleshoot id for 3PCC
>>>>> callflow has
>>>>>
>>>>>> to be based on another
>>>>>> troubleshoot-id-part-2 ;-) Then it requires more
>>>> discussion in IETF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Partha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:52 AM
>>>>>> To: Parthasarathi R (partr)
>>>>>> Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); [e-mail]; 
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - IETF telco on the 19th
>>>>> of October
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't want to implement support for passing through a 
>>>>>> session-id header, then don't.  No one's making you.
>>>> We're talking
>>>>>> about an RFC, not a Biblical commandment.  There are a
>>>> boat-load of
>>>>>> RFC's no one's ever implemented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not the be-all-end-all final solution for world hunger.
>>>>>> It's just one header.  It's one tool in a bag of tools.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If some vendors support passing a session-id header and
>>>>> other's don't,
>>>>>
>>>>>> it won't be as useful as it could have been.
>>>>>> My customers tell me such a header would help them.  Maybe
>>>>> I'm naive,
>>>>>> but I would think when customers tell their vendors to do
>>>>> something,
>>>>>> the vendors generally try to do it.
>>>>>> Especially if it's trivial to implement and helps the vendors
>>>>>> *themselves* with supporting the customers in TAC.  So my
>>>> belief is
>>>>>> the market will decide if session-id succeeds - customers
>>>>> will either
>>>>>> want it, or not.  Meanwhile, all it takes to find out is to
>>>>> publish a
>>>>>> fairly simple RFC.  If it fails, we've wasted some IETF
>>>>> people's time
>>>>>> and an RFC number.  If it succeeds, we've made SIP a little
>>>>> bit easier
>>>>>
>>>>>> to manage, for all of us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SIPCLF is orthogonal to session-id, really. In fact, one
>>>> would hope
>>>>>> the session-id would be recorded in SIPCLF as well.  Had we
>>>>> published
>>>>>> session-id when it was initially proposed, it would have been 
>>>>>> available in time for SIPCLF to make a mandatory field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for SIPREC, that's exactly the problem: I already *know*
>>>>> of cases
>>>>>> where we'll need to remove whatever correlation id
>>> siprec ends up
>>>>>> using.  Overloading this header for such things is just
>>> bound to
>>>>>> reduce its troubleshooting value, because we'll need to
>>> remove or
>>>>>> change it.  But that's *OK* - we have no shortage of
>>> header names
>>>>>> available in SIP ABNF.
>>>>>> They can go define whatever new header-name they'd like,
>>>>> with another
>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hadriel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 27, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Parthasarathi R (partr) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                        Hadriel,
>>>>>>                SBC removing the header in the incoming SIP
>>>>> message and
>>>>>> forming the new outgoing message is the default behavior
>>>> and it is
>>>>>> nothing to do with session-id proposal.
>>>>>> Session-id IETF RFC will help SBC to design for passing
>>>> across the
>>>>>> specific header in the forthcoming release. Which
>>>>> forthcoming release
>>>>>> (after 3 years or 10 years) depends upon the compelling
>>>> reason for
>>>>>> this header in specific SBC or other SIP device as we have
>>>>> number of
>>>>>> SIP RFC today to implement.
>>>>>>                AFAIK, most of the companies create their
>>>> own unique
>>>>>> session id to identify the session and using it within
>>>>> their network
>>>>>> for different purposes. Standardizing session id SIP header
>>>>> makes all
>>>>>> the companies to interop in case the purpose of the
>>>>> specific company's
>>>>>
>>>>>> unique session id is not broken. IMO, troubleshooting is
>>>> one of the
>>>>>> usecase which has workaround by building the
>>> appropriate logging
>>>>>> mechanism and tools to analyze the log across the device. I
>>>>> guess that
>>>>>
>>>>>> SIPCLF WG addresses this requirement. If troubleshooting is
>>>>> the only
>>>>>> scope of the session-id, the adaptability of this header
>>>> will take
>>>>>> long time or may not take place in case the company
>>>> provides better
>>>>>> means for troubleshooting.
>>>>>>                In case of SIPREC, the multiple
>>>> communication session
>>>>>> has to be related together in a single recording session
>>>> using the
>>>>>> unique id. Most of the folks in SIPREC mailing alias
>>> thinks that
>>>>>> session-id in communication session will serve the purpose.
>>>>> IMO, the
>>>>>> usability of the session-id has to be extended and it
>> has to be
>>>>>> generic rather than specific service or application.
>>>>>>                As I mentioned in the earlier mail thread
>>>>> with RE-INVITE
>>>>>
>>>>>> based transfer in B2BUA usecase, session-id in the current
>>>>> form will
>>>>>> not serve the purpose for troubleshooting as well.
>>> Cisco has the
>>>>>> header similar to session-id which is named as "cisco-guid"
>>>>> which has
>>>>>> the issue in handling the mentioned usecase. We need to
>>> find the
>>>>>> better solution for session-id.
>>>>>>                Thanks
>>>>>>        Partha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>        Sent: Wed 10/27/2010 7:35 PM
>>>>>>        To: Parthasarathi R (partr)
>>>>>>        Cc: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); [e-mail]
>>>>>>        Subject: Re: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - IETF telco on
>>>>> the 19th of
>>>>>> October
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        I'm not sure which way you mean this - do you mean
>>>> if I don't
>>>>>> get this published as an IETF RFC then SBC's will remove
>>>>> it, or do you
>>>>>
>>>>>> mean even if we go define this as an IETF RFC SBC's will
>>>>> still remove
>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        I'm fairly confident that if it's published as an
>>>> IETF RFC in
>>>>>> its current form then SBC's won't remove it - or they
>>>> will provide
>>>>>> upgrades to not remove it.  I believe that because in my
>>>> experience
>>>>>> SBC's do what their owners/operators want them to do.
>>   Whether
>>>>>> specific operators/admins decide to have their SBCs remove
>>>>> it or not
>>>>>> remains to be seen, but if it's useful for troubleshooting
>>>>> while not
>>>>>> harmful then my guess is they'll want the session-id to
>>> be passed
>>>>>> through.
>>>>>> IF it causes any call failures, then they'll block it,
>>>> which is why
>>>>>> I'm so concerned about expanding the scope of it to other
>>>>> things than
>>>>>> troubleshooting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        If it's not published as an IETF RFC, then its less
>>>> likely to
>>>>>> succeed in the marketplace.  I could just take it to 3gpp,
>>>>> but I was
>>>>>> hoping to make this useful in non-IMS networks as
>> well, such as
>>>>>> Enterprise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        -hadriel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        On Oct 27, 2010, at 5:50 AM, Parthasarathi R
>>> (partr) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        >  Hadriel,
>>>>>>        >
>>>>>>        >  In terms of SIP SBC, any unique ID or header or
>>>>> body will be
>>>>>> removed or
>>>>>>        >  modified whether it is for troubleshooting or for
>>>> any other
>>>>>> application
>>>>>>        >  purpose.
>>>>>>        >
>>>>>>        >  Let us take the troubleshooting application itself.
>>>>>> What is the
>>>>>>        >  requirement for Enterprise SBC to pass the
>>>>> troubleshooting-id
>>>>>> to service
>>>>>>        >  provider network in case SBC acts as UA or IMS UE
>>>>> to service
>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>        >  network? Being the border element, SBC may wish to
>>>>> put the new
>>>>>>        >  troubleshooting id (hiding session-id) to the
>>>>> outgoing dialog
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>        >  same session rather than passing the existing
>>>>> troubleshooting
>>>>>> id.
>>>>>>        >
>>>>>>        >  I agree that the unique identification for the
>>> session is
>>>>>> required in
>>>>>>        >  different SIP application for different requirements.
>>>>>> I'm seeing lot of
>>>>>>        >  requirement in Enterprise deployment other than 
>>>>>> troubleshooting and
>>>>>>        >  also, noticed the unique-id requirement in SIPREC
>>>>> to identify
>>>>>> the group
>>>>>>        >  of communication session.
>>>>>>        >
>>>>>>        >  Until otherwise SBC or any other middle box
>>>>>> (B2BUA/Focus) decides to
>>>>>>        >  pass the specific header(s) based on standard, this
>>>>> unique-id
>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>        >  will never fly.
>>>>>>        >
>>>>>>        >  Thanks
>>>>>>        >  Partha
>>>>>>        >
>>>>>>        >  -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>        >  From: [e-mail]
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of
>>>>>>        >  Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat)
>>>>>>        >  Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:44 PM
>>>>>>        >  To: [e-mail]
>>>>>>        >  Subject: Re: [RAI] Minutes of 3GPP - IETF telco on
>>>>> the 19th of
>>>>>
>>>>>> October
>>>>>>        >
>>>>>>        >  ISTM there is a Catch-22 here.
>>>>>>        >
>>>>>>        >  If an ID is potentially of use for more than one
>>>>> purpose, some
>>>>>
>>>>>> middlebox
>>>>>>        >  wants to mess with it in regard to one of those
>>> purposes.
>>>>>> (Block it,
>>>>>>        >  make it work "better", etc.) Hence the only
>>>> solution is to
>>>>>> create a
>>>>>>        >  separate ID for each and every possible use. :-(
>>>>>>        >
>>>>>>        >         Thanks,
>>>>>>        >         Paul
>>>>>>        >
>>>>>>        >  On 10/26/2010 11:39 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>>>>>>        >>
>>>>>>        >>  The problem with using session-id for anything else
>>>>>> is: for every
>>>>>>        >>  other use-case discussed so far, I can
>> easily imagine
>>>>>> situations where
>>>>>>        >
>>>>>>        >>  a middlebox would need to change the
>>> session-id to make
>>>>>> things work,
>>>>>>        >>  thereby negating its troubleshooting value.
>>>>>>        >>
>>>>>>        >>  -hadriel
>>>>>>        >>
>>>>>>        >>  On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
>>>>>>        >>
>>>>>>        >>>  Hi Hadriel,
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>  I have implemented this as well. It has
>> utility in a
>>>>>> non-trouble
>>>>>>        >>>  shooting context in my application.
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>  I think the issue in IETF was that we fell into
>>>>> the "solve
>>>>>> world
>>>>>>        >>>  hunger" trap. SIPREC through they might find it
>>>>> useful for
>>>>>> session
>>>>>>        >>>  correlation but in a pure SIP sense this
>>>>> mechanism does not
>>>>>> guarantee
>>>>>>        >
>>>>>>        >>>  dialog correlation...
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>  Peter Musgrave
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>  On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Hadriel Kaplan
>>>>>>        >>>  <[e-mail] 
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>  wrote:
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>     Hi,
>>>>>>        >>>     I see the topic of session-id and SIPSCOTCH came
>>>>>> up in this
>>>>>>        >>>     meeting. I've tried getting it chartered, but it
>>>>>> appears there
>>>>>>        >>>     isn't consensus that the narrow topic I want
>>>>> to focus on
>>>>>>        >>>     (troubleshooting) is what other people
>> care about.
>>>>>>        >>>     (well... not for people in the IETF anyway - I
>>>>>> get constant
>>>>>>        >>>     queries about this draft mechanism from service
>>>>>> providers, but
>>>>>>        >>>     they don't generally join nor comment in IETF
>>>>>> mailing lists)
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>     So I don't really know what to do, other than
>>>>>> just implement it
>>>>>>        >>>     and convince some other vendors to as well, and
>>>>>> avoid the IETF.
>>>>>>        >>>     The IETF just isn't a good place for dealing
>>>>>> with operational
>>>>>>        >>>     issues in SIP, afaict.
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>     -hadriel
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>     On Oct 22, 2010, at 9:32 AM,
>>>>> <[e-mail]
>>>>>>        >>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>> <[e-mail]
>>>>>>        >>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>  wrote:
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>>     Dear all,
>>>>>>        >>>>     please find the minutes of the 3GPP - IETF
>>>>>> telco earlier this
>>>>>>        >  week.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *Date:*19^th October 2010
>>>>>>        >>>>     *Time:*15:00 - 17:00 UTC
>>>>>>        >>>>     *Venue:*Phone conference
>>>>>>        >>>>     *Participants:*
>>>>>>        >>>>     Hannu Hietalahti (notetaker), Atle Monrad,
>>>>>> Peter Schmitt,
>>>>>>        >>>>     Christer Holmberg, Peter Dawes, Bengt Sahlin,
>>>>>> Keith Drage, Milan
>>>>>>        >>>>     Patel, Georg Mayer,
>>>>>>        >>>>     Robert Sparks, Adam Roach, Dale Worley, Spencer
>>>>>> Dawkins, Dan
>>>>>>        >>>>     Romascanu, Jari Arkko, Paul Kyzivat,
>> Ben Campbell
>>>>>>        >>>>     *Agenda:*
>>>>>>        >>>>     -------------
>>>>>>        >>>>     1. Roll call
>>>>>>        >>>>     2. Review of action points
>>>>>>        >>>>     3. ATOCA work
>>>>>>        >>>>     - Presentation of 3GPP PWS in IETF #79
>>>>>>        >>>>     4. Stalled drafts
>>>>>>        >>>>     - draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis
>>>>>>        >>>>     - draft-ietf-patel-ecrit-sos-parameter
>>>>>>        >>>>     - draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance
>>>>>>        >>>>     - draft-ietf-sipcore-keep
>>>>>>        >>>>     - draft-ietf-sipcore-199
>>>>>>        >>>>     - draft-bliss-call-completion
>>>>>>        >>>>     - draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp
>>>>>>        >>>>     - draft-patel-dispatch-cpc-oli-parameter
>>>>>>        >>>>     -
>> draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling
>>>>>>        >>>>     - draft-kaplan-dispatch-session-id
>>>>>>        >>>>     - draft-dawes-dispatch-mediasec-parameter?
>>>>>>        >>>>     5. Review of 3GPP IETF dependency document
>>>>>>        >>>>     - any comments on any other items in the
>>>>> dependency list
>>>>>>        >>>>     6. Next meeting
>>>>>>        >>>>     7. AOB
>>>>>>        >>>>     8. Closing
>>>>>>        >>>>     *1. **ROLL CALL*
>>>>>>        >>>>     All participants are listed above.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *2. **REVIEW OF ACTION POINTS*
>>>>>>        >>>>     *#*     *Old APs from previous meetings*
>>>>>> *Responsible*
>>>>>>        >  *Status*
>>>>>>        >>>>     14      Talk with ECRIT chairs and Robert
>>>>>> Sparks to make a
>>>>>>        >  proposal on
>>>>>>        >>>>     how and where the sos-parameter -draft
>>>> should progress
>>>>>>        >>>>     The current version is being reviewed in
>>>>>> DISPATCH and then
>>>>>>        >>>>     foreseen to proceed as AD sponsored draft
>>>>>>        >>>>             Gonzalo         Closed
>>>>>>        >>>>     15      Request for volunteers from 3GPP side
>>>>>> to co-author
>>>>>>        >>>>     draft-mmusic-ice-tcp    Atle    Closed
>>>>>>        >>>>     16      Check with 3GPP LS officer why the LS
>>>>>> C1-101810 was not
>>>>>>        >>>>     distributed on DISPATCH list
>>>>>>        >>>>     One way forward would be to provide an
>>>>>> informational draft to
>>>>>>        >>>>     document how things have been done
>>>>>> historically. It was agreed
>>>>>>        >>>>     that re-distribution of the LS is not necessary.
>>>>>>        >>>>             Hannu   Closed
>>>>>>        >>>>             *New APs assigned in this meeting*
>>>>>>        >>>>     17      Agree during IETF #79 how to progress
>>>>>> the work on
>>>>>>        >>>>     draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis  Keith,
>>>>>> Christer, Robert Open
>>>>>>        >>>>     18      Decide between the editor, DISPATCH
>>>>>> co-chairs and AD the
>>>>>>        >  best
>>>>>>        >>>>     approach to progress the work on
>>>>>>        >>>>     draft-patel-dispatch-cpc-oli-parameter.
>>>>>> Milan, Mary,
>>>>>>        >  Cullen,
>>>>>>        >>>>     Robert  Open
>>>>>>        >>>>
>>>>>>        >>>>
>>>>>>        >>>>
>>>>>>        >>>>     *3. ATOCA**WORK*
>>>>>>        >>>>     Outside this meeting it has been agreed with
>>>>>> ATOCA WG chairs
>>>>>>        >  that
>>>>>>        >>>>     Hannu Hietalahti will make a presentation of
>>>>>> 3GPP Public Warning
>>>>>>        >>>>     System in the ATOCA session in IETF #79. The
>>>>>> presentation is
>>>>>>        >>>>     being prepared in small expert group. The
>>>>>> drafting group does
>>>>>>        >  not
>>>>>>        >>>>     follow any 3GPP WG borders but anyone who is
>>>>>> willing to work on
>>>>>>        >>>>     the presentation is invited to contact Hannu.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *4. STALLED DRAFTS*
>>>>>>        >>>>     *4.1 draft-drage-sipping-rfc**3455bis*
>>>>>>        >>>>     This draft has been stalled due to low priority
>>>>>> to drive it from
>>>>>>        >>>>     3GPP side. Christer Holmberg volunteered to
>>>>> help out as
>>>>>>        >  co-editor
>>>>>>        >>>>     to get the work done.
>>>>>>        >>>>     It still needs to be agreed how to progress
>>>>>> this draft. AP 17
>>>>>>        >  was
>>>>>>        >>>>     assigned to determine whether it can proceed as
>>>>>> AD sponsored
>>>>>>        >  draft?
>>>>>>        >>>>     *4.2 draft-ietf-patel-ecrit-sos**-parameter*
>>>>>>        >>>>     Extensibility mechanism has been removed and
>>>>>> now it is reversed
>>>>>>        >>>>     back to just URI parameter to indicate
>>>>>> emergency registration.
>>>>>>        >>>>     The latest draft does not take any position on
>>>>>> how the special
>>>>>>        >>>>     registration would be treated afterwards.
>>>>> Misuse of URI
>>>>>>        >  parameter
>>>>>>        >>>>     is covered in the latest version, aiming at
>>>>>> restricting the use
>>>>>>        >>>>     of the special registration to emergency
>>> case only.
>>>>>>        >>>>     The 3GPP requirement is to identify special
>>>>>> registration for
>>>>>>        >>>>     emergency purposes.
>>>>>>        >>>>     Possible re-naming of the draft was discussed
>>>>>> to highlight that
>>>>>>        >>>>     it has been recently treated in DISPATCH but no
>>>>>> firm decision
>>>>>>        >  was
>>>>>>        >>>>     made on this yet.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *4.3 draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance*
>>>>>>        >>>>     Authors intend to distribute a new version
>>>>>> before IETF #79 to
>>>>>>        >>>>     address the open issues that were identified in
>>>>>> IETF #78 in
>>>>>>        >>>>     Maastricht. The new version will be discussed
>>>>>> in Beijing IETF.
>>>>>>        >  If
>>>>>>        >>>>     no new issues are raised, it is expected that
>>>>>> the draft could go
>>>>>>        >>>>     to WG LC in November or December.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *4.4 draft-ietf-sipcore-keep*
>>>>>>        >>>>     The draft has just finished WG last call and it
>>>>>> has been moved
>>>>>>        >  to
>>>>>>        >>>>     IESG today.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *4.5 draft-ietf-sipcore-199*
>>>>>>        >>>>     This draft has been in IESG for a while and it
>>>>>> has got stuck in
>>>>>>        >  a
>>>>>>        >>>>     discussion on what are the conditions when
>>>>> this draft is
>>>>>>        >  applicable.
>>>>>>        >>>>     The editor is waiting for the comment from the
>>>>>> AD (Robert
>>>>>>        >  Sparks).
>>>>>>        >>>>     *4.6 draft**-ietf-bliss-call-completion*
>>>>>>        >>>>     The draft is now in WG LC which has already
>>>>>> brought up some open
>>>>>>        >>>>     issues. Dale Worley has got a list of open
>>>>>> items and he will
>>>>>>        >>>>     share them with the editor.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *4.7 draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp*
>>>>>>        >>>>     There has been discussion on the 3GPP
>>>>>> requirement for this. Now
>>>>>>        >  a
>>>>>>        >>>>     new editor has taken over the editorship of the
>>>>>> draft and the
>>>>>>        >>>>     work is ongoing again.
>>>>>>        >>>>     Also an email comment on the foreseen way
>>>>>> forward was received.
>>>>>>        >>>>     The document authors have indicated there are
>>>>>> currently no known
>>>>>>        >>>>     issues and they have solicited a few reviewers.
>>>>>> The authors
>>>>>>        >>>>     expect to be ready for WGLC after the Beijing
>>>>>> meeting (Nov
>>>>>>        >  2010),
>>>>>>        >>>>     assuming no new issues come up.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *4.8 draft-patel-dispatch-cpc-oli-parameter*
>>>>>>        >>>>     There have been no changes since Maastricht,
>>>>>> where the feedback
>>>>>>        >>>>     was not supportive at all. Informational draft
>>>>>> that would
>>>>>>        >>>>     document historically existing solution was
>>>>>> seen as one possible
>>>>>>        >>>>     way forward. However, Tel-URI parameters
>>>>> would require a
>>>>>>        >>>>     standards track document, so this point needs
>>>>>> to be checked.
>>>>>>        >>>>     AP 18 was assigned to determine the best
>>>> way forward.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *4.9
>>>> draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling*
>>>>>>        >>>>     This draft has got a patent issue related with
>>>>>> publication
>>>>>>        >  number
>>>>>>        >>>>     US 2009/0119382 A1, Bakker et al. which is
>>>>>> dated May 7^th 2009.
>>>>>>        >>>>     3GPP needs to know whether the draft can
>>>>>> proceed to RFC or not
>>>>>>        >>>>     and take appropriate actions based on that.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *4.10 draft-kaplan-dispatch-session-id*
>>>>>>        >>>>     This is the first candidate document for
>>>>>> SIPSCOTCH. The charter
>>>>>>        >>>>     text has been discussed but the group has not
>>>>>> been chartered
>>>>>>        >  yet.
>>>>>>        >>>>     This matter has not progressed recently.
>>>>>>        >>>>     Those interested in the chartering of the WG
>>>>>> should contact the
>>>>>>        >>>>     author of the draft to re-start the charter
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *4.11 draft-dawes-dispatch-mediasec-parameter*
>>>>>>        >>>>     On 3GPP side it is seen that DTLS-based
>>>>>> solution is not seen to
>>>>>>        >>>>     work in 3GPP environment, so another solution
>>>>>> is needed. The
>>>>>>        >>>>     editor has not received much feedback on the
>>>>>> DISPATCH mailing
>>>>>>        >>>>     list on his draft. The editor will re-post the
>>>>>> draft to the list
>>>>>>        >>>>     and those driving this work can then give their
>>>>>> comments.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *5. REVIEW OF 3GPP**- IETF DEPENDENCY DOCUMENT*
>>>>>>        >>>>     *5.1 De**pendency document review during the
>>>>>> teleconference*
>>>>>>        >>>>     New version of
>>>>>> draft-liess-dispatch-alert-info-urns has been
>>>>>>        >>>>     distributed today.
>>>>>>        >>>>     The author of
>>>>>> draft-jesske-dispatch-reason-in-responses would
>>>>>>        >>>>     need AD feedback from Gonzalo on how to proceed
>>>>>> with the work.
>>>>>>        >>>>     draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm is waiting for AD
>>>>>> go-ahead (Gonzalo
>>>>>>        >>>>     Camarillo). So far this draft has been
>>>>>> processed in sync with
>>>>>>        >>>>     draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch, but it is
>>>>>> being considered
>>>>>>        >>>>     whether that linkage should be broken.
>>>>>>        >>>>     The session matching draft
>>>>>> (draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch)
>>>>>>        >  has
>>>>>>        >>>>     proven controversial both in earlier IETF
>>>>>> discussions and in the
>>>>>>        >>>>     IETF last call. It has now been sent back to WG
>>>>>> to get consensus
>>>>>>        >>>>     on how to proceed. This draft may require
>>>> substantial
>>>>>>        >  re-thinking
>>>>>>        >>>>     before it can proceed.
>>>>>>        >>>>     The status of draft-yu-tel-dai in the I-D
>>>>>> tracker will be
>>>>>>        >  checked
>>>>>>        >>>>     by Robert Sparks together with Gonzalo
>> Camarillo.
>>>>>>        >>>>     Hannu volunteered to check the latest news on
>>>>>>        >>>>     draft-das-mipshop-andsf-dhcp-options from
>>>> Jari Arkko.
>>>>>>        >>>>     draft-pkix-cmp-transport-protocols is also
>>>>>> marked as critical,
>>>>>>        >>>>     but no comments were made on it.
>>>>>>        >>>>     Email comments were received on the
>>>> following drafts.
>>>>>>        >>>>     draft-mipshop-andsf-dhcp-options is in IESG
>>>>>> evaluation with two
>>>>>>        >>>>     discussions remaining. This is seen to require
>>>>>> a straightforward
>>>>>>        >>>>     update of the draft and the a review by
>> Tim Polk.
>>>>>>        >>>>     draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis is in AD review.
>>>>>>        >>>>     draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd is pending for author's
>>>>>> changes since
>>>>>>        >>>>     September. The discusses seem reasonable.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *6. NEXT MEETING*
>>>>>>        >>>>     Hannu will attend IETF #79 which makes a good
>>>>>> opportunity for
>>>>>>        >  the
>>>>>>        >>>>     next status check-up.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS*
>>>>>>        >>>>     None.
>>>>>>        >>>>     *8. CLOSING*
>>>>>>        >>>>     The meeting was closed at 16:20 UTC.
>>>>>>        >>>>     BR,
>>>>>>        >>>>     Hannu Hietalahti
>>>>>>        >>>>     3GPP TSG CT Chairman
>>>>>>        >>>>     tel: [phone]
>>>>>>        >>>>     <ATT00001..c>
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>        >>>     RAI mailing list
>>>>>>        >>>     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>        >>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>>
>>>>>>        >>
>>>>>>        >>
>>>>>>        >>
>>>>>>        >>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>        >>  RAI mailing list
>>>>>>        >>  [e-mail]
>>>>>>        >>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>>>>>>        >  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>        >  RAI mailing list
>>>>>>        >  [e-mail]
>>>>>>        >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>