RE: [Sip] media-security-requirements and lawful intercept

["Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg at ericsson.com>]

Title: Re: [Sip] media-security-requirements and lawful intercept

Hi,

>> I don't understand this "IETF SIP" versus "3GPP SIP" thing.
>>
>> "3GPP SIP" is a SIP profile, including a number of SIP extensions, all
>> done in IETF. There is nothing which a non-3GPP entity can't use.
>  
>
>I said the bifurcation exists _in_ _the_ _market_. Did you follow the
>link I included? It's extraordinarily relevant. If you need more
>context: these are screenshots from the SIP account configuration
>screens on the Nokia E61:
>
><http://www.nostrum.com/~adam/images/too-late.png>

I did follow the link. My question was not directly towards you. It was a more generic question, because this IETF SIP versus 3GPP SIP thing comes up quite often.

>We can argue over whether the split is real on the technical level (and there are several reasons that it is -- for example, using SigComp without proper signaling of the intention to do so ahead of time), but it's all a moot point:
>products are already being designed with two distinct modes of operation.

I think that SigComp is a special case. SigComp is needed when you connect to IMS using certain access technologies (I don't think SigComp is mandatory for all IMS access technologies), so you need to study what the requirements are for those access technologies. It's not necessarily something you negotiate in SIP - it's a "pre-condition".

>>> What is "IETF SIP"? What do I have to implement in order to be "IETF
>>> SIP" compliant? RFC3261? RFC3261 plus each and every extension out
>>> there?
>>  
>RFC 3261 plus proper negotiation of any extensions you choose to
>support. More emphatically: any behavior that is not in 3261 or its
>references needs to be explicitly negotiated before it is engaged. This
>applies to both clients and network servers.

Just because you are able to negotiate it doesn't mean that you are able to fulfill the requirements the operator has.

>Need something more clear-cut? Something you can apply empirically?
>Here's a litmus test for you: if the initial signaling between two
>network elements can't negotiate down to base SIP without any
>extensions, then it's no longer SIP.

If that is true, everything would work with 3261, and we wouldn't need any extensions...

There are reasons we have defined extensions, and way to require support of them, and that is because they are needed in certain environements, and for certain services, features and use-cases. That is nothing 3GPP specific - anyone designing/deploying a SIP based network and services may require certain extensions in order to make things work.

Regards,

Christer

 

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip