Re: [stir] draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info

i- P-Charge-Info header is used over a decade in US by Tier-1’s and also in some other geographies, e.g. Japan. The reason why there was a relatively recent push to get it RFCed was mainly due to FCC.
ii- draft-york-p-charge-info-07  indeed is a non-WG item. I don’t know whether that would cause problems as questioned by Keith. Any feedback on this is appreciated.
iii- draft-york-p-charge-info-07 is now in AD-evaluation phase and I am in the process to address the comments.
iv- If used, P-Charge-Info has sensitive information and it being verified, if possible, is a natural expectation IMHO. Therefore, I submitted draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info.

Thanks,
Tolga

From: stir <stir-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Keith Drage
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:44 AM
To: stir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [stir] draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info

________________________________
NOTICE: This email was received from an EXTERNAL sender
________________________________

Just to be clear, the underlying protocol document is not a SIPCORE WG item, but being progressed as as an individual draft.

New SIP header fields can be created by such an individual draft in accordance with RFC 5727:

"

       The proposed header field MUST be of a purely informational

       nature and MUST NOT significantly change the behavior of SIP

       entities that support it.  Header fields that merely provide

       additional information pertinent to a request or a response are

       acceptable; these header fields are thus expected to have few, if

       any, implications for interoperability and backwards

       compatibility.  Similarly, header fields that provide data

       consumed by applications at the ends of SIP's rendezvous

       function, rather than changing the behavior of the rendezvous

       function, are likely to be providing information in this sense.

       If the header fields redefine or contradict normative behavior

       defined in Standards Track SIP specifications, that is what is

       meant by significantly different behavior.  Ultimately, the

       significance of differences in behavior is a judgment call that

       must be made by the expert reviewer.
"
However individual drafts tend to make slow progress without WGs to drive them.

I have no opinion on whether STIR should have support, but would question whether a WG standards track item should be defined to support protocol that was not progressed as a WG item and is an informational RFC.

regards

Keith

On 09-May-18 1:35 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:

Who wants this?   What is the use case or business case for this as a PASSporT?

I’m actually curious?

It has certainly taken way to long for Dan York’s draft to float through the convoluted IETF process but why?

—

Richard Shockey

Shockey Consulting LLC

Chairman of the Board SIP Forum

www.shockey.us<http://www.shockey.us>

www.sipforum.org<http://www.sipforum.org>

richard<at>shockey.us

Skype-Linkedin-Facebook –Twitter  rshockey101

PSTN +1 703-593-2683

From: stir <stir-bounces@ietf.org><mailto:stir-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@rbbn.com><mailto:tasveren@rbbn.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:45 PM
To: "stir@ietf.org"<mailto:stir@ietf.org> <stir@ietf.org><mailto:stir@ietf.org>
Subject: [stir] draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info

I just submitted draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info:

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info-00..txt<https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info-00.txt>

It defines a new claim type for P-Charge-Info.

P-Charge-Info is going through the last steps of becoming a RFC in SIPCore WG and I though it would be a good idea to start working on/kicking off discussions about the corresponding STIR support as it is used to carry sensitive information for billing.

And here is the link for P-Charge-Info draft:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-york-p-charge-info-07

Feedback/ideas/suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks,
Tolga
_______________________________________________ stir mailing list stir@ietf.org<mailto:stir@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir

_______________________________________________

stir mailing list

stir@ietf.org<mailto:stir@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir