Re: [VIPR] A new proposal for SIP Intermediaries
John Ward <jward@IntelePeer.com> Wed, 05 October 2011 20:09 UTC
Return-Path: <jward@IntelePeer.com>
X-Original-To: vipr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vipr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB88921F8BE5 for <vipr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_TEXT=2.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MfXHBAWhsE6V for <vipr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gateout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF1421F8BE4 for <vipr@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gwo2-lo [127.0.0.1]) by gateout02.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F8C4BDCEB; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 20:12:39 +0000 (GMT)
X-USANET-Received: from gateout02.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by gateout02.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.72B) with ESMTP id 516PJeumj2480Mo2; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:12:35 -0000
X-USANET-Routed: 10 gwsout-externalarchive C:gwsarchive:650 intelepeer.com.gw.dwtetzxbj@incoming02.seccas.com
Received: from S1HUB4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.120.254] by gateout02.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.72B) with ESMTPS id XID248PJeumj6109Xo2; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:12:35 -0000
X-USANET-Source: 165.212.120.254 IN jward@IntelePeer.com S1HUB4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET
X-USANET-MsgId: XID248PJeumj6109Xo2
Received: from MBX6.EXCHPROD.USA.NET ([10.120.221.62]) by S1HUB4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET ([10.120.220.34]) with mapi; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 20:12:21 +0000
From: John Ward <jward@IntelePeer.com>
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>, "vipr@ietf.org" <vipr@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:11:52 +0000
Thread-Topic: [VIPR] A new proposal for SIP Intermediaries
Thread-Index: AcyB/yh8x+OK1fPXRAyhKtlO6TJXTQBm8mRQ
Message-ID: <8461F7EE2109014B9D247CF39BBA419FA9EC7B411C@MBX6.EXCHPROD.USA.NET>
References: <4E89F095.3070301@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E89F095.3070301@acm.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [VIPR] A new proposal for SIP Intermediaries
X-BeenThere: vipr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Verification Involving PSTN Reachability working group <vipr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vipr>, <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vipr>
List-Post: <mailto:vipr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vipr>, <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:09:37 -0000
Marc, I am supported of this proposal. John -----Original Message----- From: Marc Petit-Huguenin [mailto:petithug@acm.org] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 11:28 AM To: vipr@ietf.org Subject: [VIPR] A new proposal for SIP Intermediaries -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 For the second time, the Design Team conference call got stuck on the subject of SIP intermediaries in VIPR, and we were not able to make any progress on the VIPR specifications themselves. I was supposed to send another email to this mailing-list to describe in more details the problems created by SIP intermediaries but I fear that the next conference calls will still being spent arguing about this. So I would like to propose an alternate route to solve this issue. SIP intermediaries are not described at all in the current specifications, but I think that everybody agree that we should say something about it, because it will become a reality, even if we decide to make it a SHOULD NOT (which would exclude a lot of potential participants from the VIPR federation). On the other hand, VIPR domains does not require SIP intermediaries to work. So my proposal is: 1. Put everything related to SIP intermediaries in a separate I-D, so it does not hold the main specifications. 2. Add in the main specifications the "hooks" required to be able to add support for SIP intermediaries as an extension in the future (as opposed to have to work on a new version of the VIPR RFCs to add SIP intermediaries, which will push back the deployment of SIP intermediaries for another 3 years). 3. Add a new milestone for the SIP intermediaries (I would suggest April 2012[1]) Please let me know as soon as possible if you agree with this new plan, at least on the two first points, so I can release the first version of the new draft-petithuguenin-vipr-sip-intermediaries I-D, and so we can move one on the other subjects that are actually blocking the work on -framework. Thanks. [1] And I would also suggest to move at the same time the "Submit Specification of authorization tokens to mitigate SPAM for publication as Proposed Standard" to December 2011, as it make sense to submit this at the same time than the other core VIPR specifications. - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Personal email: marc@petit-huguenin.org Professional email: petithug@acm.org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk6J8JMACgkQ9RoMZyVa61ckLQCgpM/sND37krkNZRPWrQt4deHF dRMAnAmG7FZFFaIU7xNC+oHUIChQGU/C =t3x7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- [VIPR] A new proposal for SIP Intermediaries Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [VIPR] A new proposal for SIP Intermediaries John Ward
- Re: [VIPR] A new proposal for SIP Intermediaries Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)