Re: [splices] SIP INVOKE method

If INVOKE is to become a general method, then I could easily see people
wanting to use e.g. an XML body to specify an action. If a new method is
being defined then I would think making it fairly general would be a good
idea - and limiting an action to one text line in a header  might be
considered limiting. Hence a body would be more flexible.

One the other hand being too general will likely get is into trouble again
(e.g. the five uses of REFER) - so maybe being very specific is a good
thing. In this case I could see just a header sufficing.

A very classic dilemma...

Do people feel that a general INVOKE mechanism is missing in SIP - or do we
want to just focus on UA actions and the SPLICES requirement? Does this
debate need to include sipcore?

Peter

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) <
rifatyu@avaya.com> wrote:

> 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> 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]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:58 AM
> > To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
>
> > Cc: 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] On
> Behalf
> > Of
> > >> Paul Kyzivat
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:09 PM
> > >> To: 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
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices
> > >
> _______________________________________________
> splices mailing list
> splices@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices
>
>
>