61th IETF SIPPING Minutes
Minutes, SIPPING WG, 61th IETF
Minutes edited by Gonzalo Camarillo
Session 1, Tuesday, November 9, 2004,
0900-1130
Meeting chaired by Gonzalo Camarillo, Rohan Mahy, and Dean Willis
Notes by Ben Campbell and Spencer Dawkins
Topic: Status
Discussions led by: Chairs
Chairs do not want to run too many working group last calls in
parallel. The end-to-middle security work is scheduled for December,
the conferencing bundle (four drafts) for January, and the URI-list
services documents for February/March.
3GPP needs the conferencing document by December (January would
probably be OK as well).
Topic: Configuration
Discussions led by: Dan Petrie
Relevant documents: draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-04.txt and
draft-petrie-sipping-profile-datasets-00.txt
The configuration framework should work for low-end devices, but the
datasets mechanism may not be supported by that type of device.
The framework should not be very complex (e.g., rules to resolve
conflicts in configuration date received from different sources may get
too complex). We need to work on some use cases. think about
requirements, and keep things as simple as possible. In particular, we
need to think realistically about what low-end devices will need.
Topic: Session-Independent Policies
Discussions led by: Volker Hilt
Relevant documents: draft-ietf-sipping-session-indep-policy-01.txt
No significant discussions on the proposals in the slides. If somebody
has any objection, he or she should express them on the list.
Topic: Session-Specific Policies
Discussions led by: Volker Hilt
Relevant documents: draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy-01.txt
How does this work in a federation of domains? There is no
communication between policy servers.
The mechanism should be as simple as possible. Having use cases would
be a good idea.
Topic: URI-List Services
Discussions led by: Gonzalo Camarillo
Relevant documents: draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-01.txt,
draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-conferencing-01.txt,
draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-01.txt,
draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-subscribe-01.txt, and
draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-01.txt
URI comparisons are performed following the rules of the appropriate
URI schemes (e.g., SIP URIs are compared using the rules for SIP URI
comparison).
Can user agents update the original URI-list provided to a conference
server or to a resource list server in a SUBSCRIBE request. No, but
future extensions may allow it. The drafts will be updated to reflect
this.
Will the consent-framework be a MUST implement here? Allison will
provide input here.
The disposition type of lists sent to user agents in MESSAGEs should be
different than the disposition type of lists sent by user agents to
URI-list services.
Topic: Consent
Discussions led by: Gonzalo Camarillo
Relevant documents: draft-ietf-sipping-consent-reqs-00.txt and
draft-ietf-sipping-consent-framework-00.txt
Do we want to mandate XCAP? We may not want to limit the applicability
of this mechanism to user agents that support XCAP.
Regarding the schema for permission documents, we need to think of
low-end devices, but also on high-end devices that want to generate
complex permission documents.
Topic: Transfer
Discussions led by: Alan Johnston
Relevant documents: draft-ietf-sipping-cc-transfer-03.txt
How to correlate a REFERs sent out of dialog with GRUUs is still an
issue. Once we resolve this, the document will be ready for WGLC.
Topic: End-to-middle Security
Discussions led by: Kumiko Ono
Relevant documents: draft-ietf-sipping-e2m-reqs-04.txt (currently under
WGLC) and draft-ono-sipping-end2middle-security-03.txt
The mechanism is probably SIP work (not SIPPING).
What's the community interest in implementing this work? Significant
but not overwhelming. Will be recommended to SIP via Allison.
Topic: Caller Preferences Use Cases
Discussions led by: Paul Kyzivat
Relevant documents: draft-ietf-sipping-callerprefs-usecases-03.txt
The draft is ready for WGLC
Topic: GRUU Extensions to the Reg
Event Package
Discussions led by: Paul Kyzivat
Relevant documents: draft-kyzivat-sipping-gruu-reg-event-01.txt
Paul thinks the current draft has addressed all the open issues
received to date, but not a lot of feedback has been received anyway.
The draft needs more scrutiny.
Those who are implementing the reg package will most likely implement
this draft (based on sense of the room).
Topic: Conferencing Framework
Discussions led by: Jonathan Rosenberg
Relevant documents: draft-ietf-sipping-conferencing-framework-03.txt
(currently under WGLC)
Discussions on the scope of this draft and its relation with the XCON
framework. Allison will provide input on this issue.
Session 2, Thursday, November 11,
2004, 900-1130
Meeting chaired by Gonzalo Camarillo, Rohan Mahy, and Dean Willis
Notes by Spencer Dawkins
Topic: Real-time Text over IP
Discussions led by: Arnoud van Wijk
Relevant documents: draft-ietf-sipping-ToIP-00.txt
Need to identify requirements for SIP extensions. It may be that
everything in this document can be implemented with existing SIP
mechanisms.
Topic: Location Conveyance
Discussions led by: James Polk
Relevant documents: draft-ietf-sipping-location-requirements-02.txt
The document will contain requirements and solutions (to meet some of
the requirements at least). It will need to be decided whether the
document stays in SIPPING or is sent to SIP.
Topic: Event Package for Floor-related
Information
Discussions led by: Eunsook Kim
Relevant documents: draft-ekim-sipping-conf-floor-package-00.txt
Discussions will continue in XCON. More use cases are needed to
understand the need of an alternative mechanism to fetch floor control
information (BFCP already provides this information).
Topic: Event Package for Device
Information
Discussions led by: Brijesh Kumar
Relevant documents: draft-rahman-sipping-device-info-01.txt
The authors will have a look at RFC 3259 (A Message Bus for Local
Coordination) and at already existing event packages to see whether or
not their requirements can be met with existing mechanisms.
Topic: SIP and SPAM
Discussions led by: Jonathan Rosenberg
Relevant documents: draft-rosenberg-sipping-spam-01.txt
Consensus in the room to make this draft a WG item. The chairs will
talk to Allison.
Not clear if this will be a requirements document or a framework
document. This will need to be decided.
Topic: Direct Transcoding
Discussions led by: Kang
Relevant documents: draft-taegyukang-sipping-transc-itg-00.txt
The transcoding work has not advanced during the last meetings because
the WG decided to finish other items, which are somehow related to
transcoding, before (e.g., URI-list services for INVITE, session
policies). The transcoding work will be resumed pretty soon, and it
will take into account this type of scenario (the transcofing
framework, which is a SIPPING WG item, actually tackles this type of
transcoding already). The authors of this draft will send requirements
to the transcoding design team.
Topic: RTCP Summary Reports
Discussions led by: Amy Pendleton
Relevant documents: draft-johnston-sipping-rtcp-summary-04.txt
Consensus in the room to make this draft a WG item. The chairs will
talk to Allison. The next revision of the draft will most likely be
ready for WGLC.
Ad-Hoc Meeting on SBCs (Session Border
Controllers), Tuesday, November 9,
2004, 1900-2100
Meeting chaired by Gonzalo Camarillo and Jonathan Rosenberg
Notes by Spencer Dawkins, Gaurav Kulshreshtha, and Steve Donovan
This Ad-hoc meeting was organized to understand what functions are
performing existing SBCs. The idea is to understand the requirements
that have led implementers to use this type of entity and see whether
these requirements can be met in a more SIP-friendly way (e.g., without
breaking end-to-end principles).
The requirements that came up during the discussions will be summarized
in an Internet-Draft. At a later point it will be decided whether such
a document turns into a survey document, requirements document, use
cases... in any case, it seems valuable to have this type of
information published.
This work will be initially handled in SIPPING (i.e., the SIPPING
mailing list is the right place to have discussions on SBCs at this
point). If it turns out that this work is wider than just SIP, the area
directors will find a home for it.
|
