Re: [V3] RIPT BoF approved for IETF 107 - Draft charter below

Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@five9.com> Thu, 20 February 2020 01:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrosen@five9.com>
X-Original-To: v3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA78120144 for <v3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:20:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fivn.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qto3AmsElI-N for <v3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM12-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-mw2nam12on2072.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.244.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81D7D120041 for <v3@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:20:27 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=mIhmlt3ZgY/cHpr8Dg9mrtWeHuN7+O8ye5MyYw9Hlk0Z9KYsoaWSUQBemhJOiaz4IcmxcwI6akHRhs6CurlX+cHRBqwMcO47fuTcbXsTg9wVXyccUKQAcGJSQnXMDD6RIzwug+7/w+W4aV+S1vPVPOUQPAmRN64QSzejqXVlmQQ1Ddi2NdM/iVRRLguqG1EE/XAVFB/y0WCEzy3tQdNSRc2ElIa4QD1y5V44tJmUy8tOZe6VCTIYehXMbSQxaMRFZogmIx/4Ystd+Bmj8nU1Jj4gB+rLzWNqG/VQeg1Iv6llOK+2zLYdfmclP/5HSDOrJBH0/TtVO5D7u8a466KexQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ex37LA7jb5fXJb6RbIShj82qdU79ITg+9PyzT1h/DsE=; b=JFxJjQCL8HZRaOXZ/FJdhWgtT5lQ8l29Xn0dLCyexdzFBrRdc47ABDzwCwmTsJgPtU4yGLG5zI+P1jt/vySM9bRTZLdMBDmIKg8NG6PKggh9QEu/LqbsQtoMjx7HhO3VjIx8N7KYnVNLhKRYiSqTw6BLQeDxV7V1jX0FLBamLZEPbzyZWC30c26eB6yDkbkVkzIMM4xE+xxuBjqkPF+g009JJ/P4ixALCtto5G+GyjJKbR78psH7SD66D8wzhfZYMsX8JQq1oWqDNrGqzPNZjCe+DI1u99aiZ8zOlfMfsgdmr1XtI3KpXBVXzL/gl5yDAYMTVL6gPR9oMfuNsOU7SQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=five9.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=five9.com; dkim=pass header.d=five9.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fivn.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-fivn-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ex37LA7jb5fXJb6RbIShj82qdU79ITg+9PyzT1h/DsE=; b=IQc8L5D4+2FOenOcIz5aTB+qjpGKm3pTcx34OOg6oQ69vgWLEu8BhxzF16vLbvDY3stQrXEhCYNFPVkh2YYFSw+vGgqRJj/Vg5+BxozwP8F8b527r2Mcu98mbWeY0KhhNzQJWOcSPEPZq5QjkU4Vpo0HKZy2xW6+/yVb+X+1FnE=
Received: from BYAPR06MB4391.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (52.135.240.26) by BYAPR06MB4517.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (52.135.234.79) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2729.25; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 01:20:25 +0000
Received: from BYAPR06MB4391.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::21c5:6201:54:13d4]) by BYAPR06MB4391.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::21c5:6201:54:13d4%2]) with mapi id 15.20.2729.032; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 01:20:25 +0000
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@five9.com>
To: "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@rbbn.com>, Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com>
CC: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>, "v3@ietf.org" <v3@ietf.org>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [V3] RIPT BoF approved for IETF 107 - Draft charter below
Thread-Index: AdXjgeGz8imU79X0QTWjBiq5oM7qsgAEGIgAAACwSIAADAjQAACr1DMgAAh5pAAABb8KAAAK9n0AABImCIAAAjApUAACZz6AABRwPwAAAVOCIA==
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 01:20:25 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR06MB4391C1B4851AD5FB6CEF9D89FB130@BYAPR06MB4391.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BYAPR06MB43914433BF91CE216E6123A6FB150@BYAPR06MB4391.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <CAKKJt-eKB4wxqK8Xiho2tYaqpM3_fjQYsjJh5-cf_RWd6iR8sQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+23+fGNO86ii6q0hd3aiSdib2AT-iu3O+DmgGJXTFbFkGxLnQ@mail.gmail.com> <F72DFB60-1BA3-4CD3-9DB2-DF986F3729DE@live555.com> <BYAPR06MB4391E5B3FB4258BEF59F7BFBFB110@BYAPR06MB4391.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <3254DED7-C105-4674-82E4-0D6968CB8744@live555.com> <CAKKJt-e5byVGLTgQAKWn=c9q1eU4mf8e=b8mucPOppPsmFnShw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0YiTZUQ5C7T8zOoe7f4jLWG8hYE08mC_cNuqzVLMZy6w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-ewJuBY_wu9Uhg2ijOcCRXpFy-tXzFwoKjarA3EV6-EkA@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR06MB43911753D17BCADE1B0DF40DFB100@BYAPR06MB4391.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <B0796F47-9F6C-4242-8A96-33A9FCEF73B5@live555.com> <BN7PR03MB3827B4A0429BD4372DA9B1ECA5130@BN7PR03MB3827.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR03MB3827B4A0429BD4372DA9B1ECA5130@BN7PR03MB3827.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jdrosen@five9.com;
x-originating-ip: [108.35.46.157]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 23a6f849-b531-4f4c-bb34-08d7b5a31080
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR06MB4517:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR06MB45178E003E6A0CA7B8FF4ECBFB130@BYAPR06MB4517.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 031996B7EF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(376002)(366004)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(199004)(189003)(8676002)(76116006)(53546011)(6506007)(81166006)(66946007)(4326008)(478600001)(64756008)(66446008)(66476007)(66556008)(2906002)(81156014)(8936002)(66574012)(7696005)(5660300002)(86362001)(55016002)(52536014)(316002)(110136005)(71200400001)(54906003)(33656002)(9686003)(966005)(26005)(186003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR06MB4517; H:BYAPR06MB4391.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: five9.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: xiPkueXD1PnOYltKxqkA/8o0kprZll3o0NLNv/0RFkR+2sM4fRYWoZSQ594njYoSGCVJlHKfGTjFHmnEkc89MIi5oEQMSmeO5WcKN2OKYRdlKyvQBeKS+3hM8caXqWgmmaw4/sP9cBDzLAu2Q78Fzg==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BYAPR06MB4391C1B4851AD5FB6CEF9D89FB130BYAPR06MB4391namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: five9.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 23a6f849-b531-4f4c-bb34-08d7b5a31080
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Feb 2020 01:20:25.6083 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f6c5114f-7396-4a09-af1e-98ee46f99bdb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: p2ke9YQGE9ZxC4HoY3i//oPLG79dvo7w7BuURgUCVpGALLqFPNw0YJMXNHMpFE9XORXbln3b9vF5ZEXcjko8aw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR06MB4517
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v3/hf4-daviT45s9dUq-xvirj0zLhE>
Subject: Re: [V3] RIPT BoF approved for IETF 107 - Draft charter below
X-BeenThere: v3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <v3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v3>, <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v3/>
List-Post: <mailto:v3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v3>, <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 01:20:31 -0000

Now we’re getting to some meat! Tolga said:

> I doubt standard HTTP  load balancers can be used as is even if all real time session messaging (signaling, media, …) is HTTP based. Required semantics, e.g. different treatment based on RPH, overload control etc…,  are simply different than what is needed/used/sufficient for standard Web applications. On another note, a core issue for Cloud load balancing is failure detection/failover time for back ends servers. This again is an area where “just using HTTP” wouldn’t help.


So – a key goal here is to move away from voip being ‘special’ to being ‘just another app’. You’re correct that Resource Priority isn’t something existing LB’s deal with, but the idea of prioritizing different requests when a load balancer is overloaded, is not a problem unique to voip. I also don’t think that the applications which typically worry about RPH are initial targets for this protocol.

For overload control – well there I disagree. In this protocol, the HTTP LB holds no call state so normal HTTP overload handling I think will work fine.

Similarly – failure detection is often done today via REST endpoints which are implemented in the origin servers which the LB pings. That will work just fine in this case, Ive personaly implemented stuff that works this way.

That said – you are correct that the charter needs to be clearer on this underlying assumption.

From: Asveren, Tolga <tasveren@rbbn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 7:37 PM
To: Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com>om>; Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@five9.com>
Cc: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>om>; Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>et>; v3@ietf.org; Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>om>; Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Subject: RE: [V3] RIPT BoF approved for IETF 107 - Draft charter below

“Firstly, we assume that all of the servers sit behind HTTP load balancers, and are not reachable directly. This is standard practice.”

I would like to point out that this is an important assumption and does not entirely overlap with reality. Application specific and L4 load balancers are used widely in Cloud deployments for real-time sessions. I doubt standard HTTP  load balancers can be used as is even if all real time session messaging (signaling, media, …) is HTTP based. Required semantics, e.g. different treatment based on RPH, overload control etc…,  are simply different than what is needed/used/sufficient for standard Web applications.

On another note, a core issue for Cloud load balancing is failure detection/failover time for back ends servers. This again is an area where “just using HTTP” wouldn’t help.

Having “HTTP only” as a core principle is fine but I think the rationale for that should be articulated more in detail and clarity.

Thanks,
Tolga

From: V3 <v3-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:v3-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Ross Finlayson
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:52 AM
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@five9.com<mailto:jdrosen@five9.com>>
Cc: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com<mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>>; Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net<mailto:jdrosen@jdrosen.net>>; v3@ietf.org<mailto:v3@ietf.org>; Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>>; Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com<mailto:juberti@google.com>>
Subject: Re: [V3] RIPT BoF approved for IETF 107 - Draft charter below

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



> On Feb 20, 2020, at 3:01 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@five9.com<mailto:jdrosen@five9.com>> wrote:
>
> Firstly, we assume that all of the servers sit behind HTTP load balancers, and are not reachable directly. This is standard practice. That means that clients have to send media through HTTP. Secondly, we assume that sticky routing happens in these load balancers the ‘normal’ way – through a combo of hashing of 5-tuples and usage of session cookies. That means that, in order to get the media to the server handling the signaling (which is what we want), the media needs to come in the same connection, and use cookies. This further ties it to HTTP. In order to deal with failures of those servers and enable mid-call recovery without loss of media packets, we also need the transport to contain call identifiers. This way, media can just ‘be sent’ to a new server in the pool behind the load balancer, and it can pick up where things left off in the previous server without losing any media packets (like - not one). In RIPT this happens because all media are PUT/GET from the call URI.

OK, thanks - this explanation makes it very clear that what you’re planning is a protocol for audio/video calls *over HTTP* - and over HTTP only. A lot of the confusion (largely on my part, I admit) about what you’re proposing would have been avoided if this had been clearer in the name of the protocol (and BOF) - i.e., if there had been an “H” in there (I would have preferred something like MoH: “Media over HTTP” :-)

And grandiose statements about this protocol "replacing SIP, RTP and SDP” don’t help either - unless you really see the “HTTP Internet” (hourglass) becoming the entire Internet. (Not all of us are ready to concede that, just yet ;-)


Ross Finlayson
Live Networks, Inc.
http://www.live555.com/

--
V3 mailing list
V3@ietf.org<mailto:V3@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v3

________________________________
Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
________________________________

________________________________

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files attached may contain confidential information of Five9 and/or its affiliated entities. Access by the intended recipient only is authorized. Any liability arising from any party acting, or refraining from acting, on any information contained in this e-mail is hereby excluded. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, destroy the original transmission and its attachments and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Copyright in this e-mail and any attachments belongs to Five9 and/or its affiliated entities.