Last Modified: 2005-07-25
Done | Submit Internet-Draft on SIP-Telephony Framework to IESG for consideration as a BCP | |
Done | Submit Internet-Draft on ISUP-SIP Mapping to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard | |
Done | Submit Internet-Draft on Requirements for use of SIP to support telephony for the Hearing-Impaired to IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC | |
Done | Submit SIP 3rd party call control to IESG for consideration as BCP | |
Done | Submit Internet-Draft on 3G Requirements to IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC | |
Done | Submit Internet-Draft on Mapping ISUP Overlap Signaling to SIP to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard | |
Done | Submit Internet-Draft on Usage Guideline for Events (Subscribe-Notify) to IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC | |
Done | Submit Internet-Drafts Basic and PSTN Call Flows to IESG fro consideration as BCPs | |
Done | Requirements for Content Indirection in SIP | |
Done | Submit Message Waiting SIP event package to IESG for consideration as PS | |
Done | Using ENUM with SIP Applications to IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC | |
Done | Requirements for Reuse of Connections in SIP | |
Done | Submit Internet-Draft on T.38 Fax Call Flows to IESG for consideration as a BCP | |
Done | Requirements for SIP Request History | |
Done | Submit Internet-Draft on Requirements for AAA Application in SIP Telephony to IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC | |
Done | Sip Interworking with QSIG | |
Done | 3pcc Transcoding to IESG as Info | |
Done | KPML to IESG as PS | |
Done | Conferencing Requirements to IESG as Info | |
Done | Conferencing Framework to IESG as Info | |
Done | Conferencing Call Control-Conferencing to IESG as BCP | |
Sep 04 | Location Requirements to IESG as Info | |
Done | End-to-Middle Security Requirements to IESG as Info | |
Sep 04 | Requirements on Trait-Based Authorization to IESG as Info | |
Done | Configuration Framework to the IESG as a PS | |
Oct 04 | Submit Requirements and Framework for Exploders to the IESG as PS | |
Oct 04 | Submit Opt-in/Opt-out Mechanism for Exploders to the IESG as PS | |
Oct 04 | Submit URI List Transport Mechanism to the IESG as PS | |
Nov 04 | Submit I-D on Ad-Hoc Conferencing using URI lists to the IESG as PS | |
Nov 04 | Submit I-D on MESSAGE Exploders to the IESG as PS | |
Nov 04 | Submit I-D on Multiple REFER to the IESG as PS | |
Nov 04 | Submit I-D on Subscriptions to Ad-Hoc Resource Lists to the IESG as PS | |
Dec 04 | Event Filtering Requirements to the IESG | |
Dec 04 | Caller Preferences Use Cases | |
Dec 04 | SIP Service Examples | |
Dec 04 | Session Policy Requirements to IESG as Info | |
Jan 05 | Session Independent Policy Mechanism to the IESG as PS | |
Feb 05 | Transcoding with Conf Bridge to IESG as Info | |
Feb 05 | Transcoding Framework to IESG as Info | |
Mar 05 | Session Specific Policy Mechanism to the IESG as PS | |
Apr 05 | Review charter with Area Directors and recharter or conclude |
RFC | Status | Title |
---|---|---|
RFC3324 | I | Short Term Requirements for Network Asserted Identity |
RFC3351 | I | User Requirements for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) in Support of Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Speech-impaired individuals |
RFC3372 | BCP | Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Telephones (SIP-T): Context and Architectures |
RFC3398 | PS | Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) User Part (ISUP) to Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Mapping |
RFC3485 | PS | The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Session Description Protocol (SDP) Static Dictionary for Signaling Compression (SigComp) |
RFC3578 | PS | Mapping of of Integrated Services Digital Network (ISUP) Overlap Signalling to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
RFC3665 | BCP | Session Initiation Protocol Basic Call Flow Examples |
RFC3666 | BCP | Session Initiation Protocol PSTN Call Flows |
RFC3680 | Standard | A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Registrations |
RFC3702 | I | Authentication, Authorization and Accounting Requirements for the Session Initiation Protocol |
RFC3725 | BCP | Best Current Practices for Third Party Call Control in the Session Initiation Protocol |
RFC3824 | I | Using E.164 numbers with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
RFC3842 | Standard | A Message Summary and Message Waiting Indication Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
RFC3959 | Standard | The Early Session Disposition Type for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
RFC3960 | I | Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
RFC4083 | I | Input 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Release 5 requirements on the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
RFC4117 | I | Transcoding Services Invocation in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Using Third Party Call Control (3pcc) |
Minutes SIPPING WG at IETF 63 SIP P2P adhoc meeting notes TISPAN adhoc meeting notes Minutes edited by Gonzalo Camarillo Based on notes by Flemming Adreasen and Stephen Hayes Meeting chaired by Dean Willis, Rohan Mahy, and Gonzalo Camarillo WEDNESDAY, August 3, 2005, 1030-1230 Topic: Agenda Bash Discussions led by: Chairs There was an off-line last-minute discussion between Jonathan Rosenberg and the authors of the profile datasets. As a consequence, the presentation of the profile datasets was moved to the second SIPPING session in order to be able to present the results of this discussion to the group. The chairs presented the status of a number of drafts: o The torture tests draft has problems with the S/MIME examples. The authors will work with the security area director to fix them. o All the URI-list services drafts have been WGLCed already. Since they depend on the consent framework, they will not be sent to the IESG until consent is ready. o There was a problem with the submission of the RTCP summary draft. The authors will add a set of minor comments and resubmit after the meeting. o There were very few comments during the WGLC on the trait-based authorization draft. The chairs polled the room and only few people had read the draft. Among those who had read it, there was consensus that the draft was ready. The chairs will review the draft and decide whether it is ready to be sent to the IESG. o The SIPPING WG assigned Gonzalo Camarillo to perform an expert review on the PoC settings event package draft. He had already performed it before the meeting. Rohan Mahy had concerns related to congestion of non-INVITE-transaction with the multiple-MESSAGE draft. There was a discussion in the room during which it was noted that this had already been discussed one year ago. The conclusion, based on the consensus in the room, was to go ahead with the draft adding some warning text to it. The chairs discussed a number of individual contributions: o The following draft was considered to be out of scope of SIPPING: draft-sohel-sipping-s-bc-concept-arch-00.txt o There were discussions on the following draft: draft-elwell-sipping-redirection-reason-02.txt. The problem of adding additional reason information to responses has appeared many times in the past. The WG is interested studying the problem. We need a solution for it. The chairs will talk to the AD to decide whether or not SIPPING will tackle this work. o The chairs stated that there is no interest and expertise in the WG to work on the following draft: draft-ma-h323-sip-conf-requirement-00.txt. o There were discussions on the following draft: draft-levin-simple-interdomain-reqs-02.txt. Some people stated that this is an interesting problem, but that the solution proposed in the draft is not the right one. Discussions to continue in the mailing list. The chairs will talk to the AD to see if this type of work could fall inside the scope of the WG. o There was consensus in the group that the following draft is useful: draft-hasebe-sipping-exceptional-procedure-example-01.txt. The authors will continue working on it with some volunteers. The chairs will talk to the AD to see whether SIPPING can tackle this as a WG item or whether it should continue as an individual contribution. One thing that will need to be decided is whether examples are enough in all cases or whether we need normative clarifications to some RFCs. o The author of the following draft brought it to the attention of the WG in order to get feedback on it: draft-niemi-sipping-cal-events-00.txt The chairs noted that they are having a lot of problems updating the charter in the official web page. There was a suggestion to maintain an up to date charter on our supplementary page if the problems persist. There was a request for setting up a web page where WGLCs would be scheduled ahead of time so that people could allocate time for them in advance. Gonzalo Camarillo committed to find a secretary for the WG to maintain the web page. Topic: Session-Independent Policies Discussion led by: Volker Hilt Relevant document: draft-ietf-sipping-session-indep-policy-03.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings The author mentioned that the policy format has been aligned with the policy datasets framework. The author asked people to read the draft and send comments. Topic: Session-specific Policy Use Cases Discussion led by: Volker Hilt Relevant document: draft-hilt-sipping-policy-usecases-00-txt Slides presented included in the proceedings The author presented the draft and asked for comments. Topic: Session-specific Policies Discussion led by: Volker Hilt Relevant document: draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy-03-txt Slides presented included in the proceedings The author presented the draft. It was commented that the mechanism needs to take into consideration scenarios with more than one policy server. There were discussions on the mechanism to transport policy information between the user agent and the policy server. It was concluded that more discussions on the list are needed. Topic: Consent Framework Discussion led by: Gonzalo Camarillo Relevant document: draft-ietf-sipping-consent-framework-02.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings The author presented the new draft, which introduces major architectural changes when compared with the previous version of the draft. The author answered questions and clarified some points that were unclear from his presentation. There was consensus in the room that this is the way to go. Topic: SIP-unfriendly Functions in Current Communications Architectures Discussion led by: Jani Hautakorpi Relevant document: draft-camarillo-sipping-sbs-funcs-01.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings The author presented the draft. The common reaction from people that read the draft was that the work is useful and that it should include more details on why things break in the different scenarios presented in the draft. The chairs need to talk to the AD to decide whether we want to use this document as input to other work without publishing as an RFC or whether we publish it as an RFC (when it is ready) to be able to point to the document every time we need to explain somebody why a particular way of implementing a function breaks SIP. Topic: SIP Event Throttles Discussion led by: Aki Niemi Relevant document: draft-niemi-sipping-event-throttle-03.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings The author explained that now the draft describes explicitly how throttles work with RLSs. It can be used without them, but it is meant to be used with RLSs. The author presented a set of open issues. There was consensus that batching functionality should not be included in this document. There was consensus in the room that this is the right direction for this work. The chairs asked whether or not this is ready to be sent to SIP, but there was no clear consensus on this point. Topic: SIP Event Framework Issues Discussion led by: Aki Niemi Relevant document: draft-niemi-sipping-subnot-issues-00.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings There were discussions on the technical issues presented. These discussions will continue on the list. One thing to be clarified in the draft is that the it will deal, in principle, with subscription timeouts, and not with transaction timeouts. Topic: Registration Event Package Extension Discussion led by: Paul Kyzivat Relevant document: draft-kyzivat-sipping-gruu-reg-event-03.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings There was consensus to have the author resubmit the draft as a WG item and WGLC it right after that. The first SIPPING session ended. THURSDAY, August 4, 2005, 1030-1230 Topic: Agenda Bash Discussions led by: Chairs There was no additional agenda bashing besides the one in the first session. Topic: Real-time ToIP Discussion led by: Arnoud van Wijk Relevant document: draft-ietf-sipping-toip-01.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings The author will release a new revision of the draft (02) including a few comments received. There was consensus that revision 02 will be ready for WGLC. Topic: Profile Datasets Discussion led by: Dan Petrie Relevant document: draft-ietf-sipping-profile-datasets-01.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings Jonathan Rosenberg extressed his concerns with the complexity introduced to the model because of data merging. He proposed to focus on data representation and semantics, and tackle merging at a later stage in a different document. A number of people stated that merging should be available from day one. Another issue related to merging that was brought forward was the meta policy needed to implement merging. Coming up with such a meta policy may be an intractable problem in some cases. The discussions will continue on the mailing list. The chairs will talk to Allison to check whether this work is within the scope of SIPPING. There was consensus in the room that, if this work falls within the scope of SIPPING, it should be a WG item. Topic: Proposed Fix to HERFP Discussion led by: Rohan Mahy Relevant document: draft-mahy-sipping-herfp-fix-00.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings There was consensus in the room that this is an important problem the WG should be working on. Regarding the particular mechanism so resolve it, a number of people claimed that there may be alternatives to the mechanism proposed in this draft. Discussions to follow in the mailing list. Topic: TISPAN Discussion led by: Denis Alexeitsev Relevant document: draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements-01.txt draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-analysis-00.txt draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-00.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings There were discussions on how to proceed with these requirements. The conclusion was to form a design team to clarify the requirements so that the community can understand them better. There was consensus in the room to produce such a clarified requirements document. The design team will not work on solutions, though. Once the requirements are documented the working group will decide the best way to work on solutions for those requirements. Note that previous to this session, there was a TISPAN ad-hoc meeting organized by the SIPPING working group where some of the requirements were discussed. Topic: P-Answer-State Discussion led by: Andrew Allen Relevant document: draft-allen-sipping-poc-p-answer-state-header-00.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings There is an issue on how to indicate in a NOTIFY (related to a REFER) that the answer state is confirmed when the controlling PoC server is at the same time the PoC server of the user agent client. An option seemed to be to place a "fake" P-Answer-State P-header in the body of the NOTIFY. More discussions are needed. Folks will provide Andrew with comments on the mailing list. Once this issue is resolved, SIPPING will perform an expert review on this draft. Topic: Implicit Subscriptions Discussion led by: Jonathan Rosenberg Relevant document: draft-rosenberg-sipping-reg-sub-00.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings There was consensus in the room that there is a problem with implicit subscriptions that needs to be solved. However, people did not agree on where the problem is. More discussions needed in order to figure out which problems are important and which ones are perceived to be important but they are not. Topic: Media Privacy Discussion led by: Henning Schulzrinne Relevant document: draft-shacham-sip-media-privacy-00.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings It was stated that it is hard to determine in an automatic way whether or not a conversation is private. There are two issues: request and indication. Request seems to be solvable. More discussions needed. Topic: SIP User Identifiers Discussion led by: Henning Schulzrinne Relevant document: draft-schulzrinne-sipping-id-relationships-00.txt Slides presented included in the proceedings It was stated that presence can give you the mappings of IDs in a better way. There is a problem when one does not know whether or not the other domain follow these conventions. It was argued that this solution may be usable in enterprise environments. This work was considered to be outside the scope of SIPPING. The second SIPPING session ended. ********** Minutes of TISPAN ad-hoc meeting at IETF 63 Organized by the SIPPING WG Minutes edited by Gonzalo Camarillo Based on notes by Tom Taylor Meeting chaired by Gonzalo Camarillo TUESDAY, August 2, 2005, 1815-1945 Topic: TISPAN requirements Discussions led by: Denis Alexeitsev Relevant documents: draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-analysis-00.txt draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements-01.txt draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-00.txt draft-garcia-sipping-etsi-ngn-p-headers-00.txtSlides presented included in the proceedings The purpose of this ad-hoc meeting was to get a common understanding of the requirements developed by the TISPAN folks. The decision about how to move forward was to be made in the SIPPING session, not during this ad-hoc. The following services are within the scope of the requirements: Anonymous Communication Rejection Terminating Indication Presentation Advice of Charge Call Completion on Busy Subscriber CCBS CCNR MCID Communication Diversion Issue: ACR There is a need to return a reason code in some scenarios. Two possibilities would be to allow Reason header fields in responses or to use warning codes in warning header fields. It was noted that this service would only be available if the callee supports this extension. It was noted that if new general status codes are needed, they should be defined. If eventually, we ran out of them, we could find ways to extend the status code space. If what is needed is to have more details within a given status code, Warning entries can be used for that. Issue: ACR override It was noted that this is not really about overriding policies, but about defining the policy properly. That is, the policy would be "the police can call me even if my phone is in not-disturb mode". The way the service is described at this point is confusing. Issue: Terminating Indication Presentation The called party needs to provide an identity to the calling party. There is a need to clarify whether the information needs to be verifiable or not and whether this is about response identity or the identity of the connected party. In the latter case the solution could be based on requests carrying the information, and not on responses. Issue: Advice of Charge An indication of charging info within an active session is needed. It should be available for MESSAGE requests as well as INVITE-initiated sessions. More work on the requirements is needed before solutions can be discussed. Issue: Communication Completion on Busy Subscriber There is a requirement that the caller is able to know whether or not the callee returning an error response (e.g., 486 Busy) supports the dialog event package. There is a number of issues with the queueing policy at the called party for sequential notifications. This may be a general issue to work on. It was noted that designing solutions for all the requirements may take a longer time than what TISPAN expects (i.e., the end of the year). The meeting ended and most of the people went to the social event. Discussions on how to move forward took place in the SIPPING session. ****************** Minutes of Peer-to-peer SIP ad-hoc meeting at IETF 63 Organized by the SIPPING WG Minutes edited by Gonzalo Camarillo Based on notes by Cullen Jennings Meeting chaired by Henning Schulzrinne Slides presented included in the proceedings THURSDAY, August 4, 2005, 0900-1000 There were around 125 attendees. The goal of this ad-hoc meeting was to discuss developing scenarios where p2p technologies may be used. These scenarios include:
People showed interest in working on the following topics:
All the systems described had somewhat common approaches in that they were using DHTs as the underlying approach. Attention should be paid to when it is the right time to use P2P technology and when other approaches such as DNS and Multicast can provide a better solution. It was commented that we should publish some of this before it all gets patented. When it comes to finding an arrangement to work on these issues in the IETF, folks may want to look at what the HIP (Host Identity Protocol) community did. The also had long and short-term goals and they formed an IETF WG and an IRTF RG at the same time. The feeling was that this work would not overlap with the work being done in the p2prg at this point. People suggested to have a full-day meeting right before the next IETF to discuss this work in depth. The meeting ended and folks took a half an hour break before the SIPPING session. |