SIPCORE WG, IETF 76

Status and Agenda

No comments on agenda

Charter summary was presented by chairs. Chair noted that we are running behind on milestones

Invite Transaction Handling Correction is ready for WGLC according to authors and chairs

Example security flows needs reviewers

Etags extension: Looking for new editor to take of IESG comments

IPv6 ABNF Fix: current plan is to publish as AD-sponsored draft instead of adopting in SIPCORE

Event Rate Control

Recap presented

Chair asks if anyone understands what we are changing. A few thumbs up. Chair volunteers to explain to people who don't understand this draft

A new mechanism to update rate control parameters mid-dialog described - no objections encountered

Note that this draft allows inclusion of Event header in a response. Something not currently allowed in RFC 3265

Author suggests that draft is ready for WGLC

Call to GEOPRIV participants to ensure this version meets their requirements

Author finished presentation early and chair requested for him to entertain the WG, perhaps by singing. Presenter declined.

INFO Method

Summarized activities since last IETF meeting including update that incorporated WGLC comments

Request for additional review since it was a major rewrite

Info Package IANA Registration Requirements

Open issue: what is required to register an info package. Alternatives presented.

Lots of discussion on namespace vs interop, specification required vs expert review:

Eric Burger: The point is to make it easy for someone to register a package with a balance for interoperability

Jon Peterson suggests we should consider IANA requirements. He asks the question if we are going to increase or decrease interop with this draft. Issue of interoperability was discussed vigorously.

Comments from Eric and Hannu Hietelahti that battles for standards in IETF take too long

Hisham Khartabil: should require RFCs, with AD sponsored drafts to speed things up

Robert Sparks: we should instruct IANA to only take a package name when specification around package name has been submitted

Hum called for IANA registration policy. Consensus was for specification required (as that term is defined by RFC 5226).

Recv-Info and 3PCC issues

Open issue: Do we mandate Recv-Info in re-INVITE response + ACK

Eric and Adam suggest that it should be included

This was compared to offer-answer. Adam clarifies that it is not quite the same since it is not a negotiation

Hum was taken regarding whether to include recv-info. consensus was to include in target refresh requests and responses

Info Packages: How is the Framework Going to be Used?

Robert asserts his concern that we don't have actual packages to guide us to the right answer. Discussions would go smoother if we do

Discussion about which packages might be standardized.

History-Info and Target URI

Presenter summarized current status and changes since last update to draft. One update since last ietf meeting

Use cases from draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery moved into document Appendix

Discussion about how voicemail server knows which one to use.

Presenter asked the question if this draft is ready to adopted by the WG. Hum was taken. Consensus to take draft as wg item.

Hum: Adopt as working group item as charter milestone for URI parameter delivery? Consensus to adopt as working group item.