Re: [Sip] moving UDP support out of the core SIP document

[Rohan Mahy <rohan@cisco.com>]

Hi Victor,

Having no default transport does not encourage interoperability which 
is a major goal of Internet protocols.

thanks,
-rohan

On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 11:23 AM, Victor Paulsamy wrote:

> If SIP is "truly" independent of underlying transport protocols, 
> wouldn't it
> be appropriate to make all transports "optional"?
>
> Regards,
>
> --victor
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sip-admin@ietf.org [mailto:sip-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Rohan
> > Mahy
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:02 AM
> > To: sip@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Sip] moving UDP support out of the core SIP document
> >
> >
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > I wanted to share some thoughts that I had about removing UDP from the
> > core SIP document when we go to draft standard. We are probably at
> > least one year away from going to Draft Standard. I hope that during
> > this time most implementations will support RFC3261, and therefore
> > support TCP.  In addition, it is quite likely that when moving to 
> > Draft
> > Standard that the IESG will REQUIRE TLS support on SIP User Agents.
> > This would ensure a ubiquitous hop-by-hop channel security mechanism,
> > but which requires a reliable transport (TCP or SCTP).
> >
> > Obviously UDP is still very attractive in wireless networks (due to 
> > RTT
> > issues) and in other typically private networks with well-understood
> > delay and loss characteristics. To make most implementations simpler
> > however, I am proposing that we make unreliable transports (UDP and
> > DCCP) of SIP optional in User Agents, and that we put the UDP-specific
> > mechanism (ex: much of the complication of the transaction layer for
> > handling retransmissions) in a separate Draft Standard document.  It 
> > is
> > very likely that if we did this there would also be a baseline 
> > security
> > mechanism for UDP as well (probably some profile of IPsec).  The net
> > effect is that SIP User Agents could also talk to each other using TCP
> > or TLS+TCP, and that User Agents with a strong preference for UDP 
> > would
> > have a consistent security mechanism.  Proxies would still support 
> > both
> > transports, so you could easily communicate between a TCP-only User
> > Agent, and as User Agent which prefers UDP without requiring the User
> > Agent to switch over to TCP.
> >
> > I welcome your discussion and comments on this idea.
> >
> > thanks,
> > -rohan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> > Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> > Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip