Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method

Hi Peter,

Yes, I expect others to try to define new category of actions, but these must be registered with IANA.
I am not clear on how this strengthens the case for using a body.

Regards,
Rifaat

From: Peter Musgrave [mailto:musgravepj@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:32 AM
To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
Cc: Paul Kyzivat; splices@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method

Rifaat,

I agree with Paul - a body may make sense.

If we are going as far as defining a new SIP METHOD - does it make sense to have separate problem domains for the URNs? Do we think in the future others might want a different "package" of actions for some other purpose? If so, I think this strengthens the case for using a body.

Peter
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) <rifatyu@avaya.com<mailto:rifatyu@avaya.com>> wrote:
Paul,

I am not talking about any intermediary, but about application servers on the call path in an enterprise.
Some application servers might be interested in a specific action to push application to the phone.
I agree that strong security is required and we are asking the client to only allow authorized users to invoke an action by challenging the INVOKE-Issuer.

Regards,
 Rifaat

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat@cisco.com<mailto:pkyzivat@cisco.com>]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:58 AM
> To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
> Cc: splices@ietf.org<mailto:splices@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method
>
>
>
> On 5/18/2011 7:29 AM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I think that the main reason for using Headers for actions and parameters is
> to allow for proxy applications on the call path to recognize the requested
> action, as some UAs might encrypt the body part.
>
> Hmm. That seems to me to be more reason to use a body part!
>
> What possible reason would an intermediary have for snooping into these
> actions?
>
> Note that this functionality is *very* sensitive - in the wrong hands
> this stuff can do great damage. I predict that there will be a lot of
> demand for very strong security considerations. Putting the action in a
> body and encrypting it might be a good approach.
>
>       Thanks,
>       Paul
>
> > Regards,
> >   Rifaat
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: splices-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:splices-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:splices-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:splices-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf
> Of
> >> Paul Kyzivat
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:09 PM
> >> To: splices@ietf.org<mailto:splices@ietf.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/17/2011 2:20 PM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, and I have the following open question about these parameters:
> >>> Should a separate header be defined for action parameters?
> >>
> >> I can be convinced otherwise (by a good justification), but I'm inclined
> >> toward describing the action and any parameters in a body part.
> >>
> >>    Thanks,
> >>    Paul
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> splices mailing list
> >> splices@ietf.org<mailto:splices@ietf.org>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices
> >
_______________________________________________
splices mailing list
splices@ietf.org<mailto:splices@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices