============================================================ Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect (Speermint) IETF#76 Speermint Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 11, 2009, 1520-1720 (Afternoon Session I - Camellia) ============================================================ The Speermint WG met at IETF#76. The meeting was chaired by Jason Livingood and Daryl Malas. Minutes recorded by Jason Livingood. 1. Introduction and Progress Report The chairs provided a review of the high level overview of the Speermint document flow, provided a status update of current drafts, and reviewed the agenda. Status of documents: - RFCs Published No new RFCs since IETF 75. - Publication Requested (IESG Evaluation) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-09 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-14 - Final Review and Feedback http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-09 - Needs Reviews http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-01 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-srv-naptr-use-06 - Other Drafts http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-01 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture (Presented by: Daryl Malas) ====================================================== Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-08 Overview: We reviewed the major details agreed on at the Design Meeting in June to ensure alignment with the working group. There were no further comments or problems with the content changes. The -09 version of the draft was completed, but had not been submitted prior to the cut-off date. Jason has requested this be submitted, and it should be available on the website very soon. In the mean time, Jason posted the draft to the mailing list. After -09 is posted, we will be initiating WGLC on the draft. SPEERMINT Message Flows (Discussion) ====================================================== Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-flows-05 There was a discussion on whether or not the working group should continue work on the message flows draft. The working group agreed there was not enough interest in the work. Reinaldo Penno has offered to update the draft based on the last comments recorded by Hadriel Kaplan. JON PETERSON: While we thought this was going to be a worthwhile effort in the beginning, I would agree it does not appear to add much value to the overall work going on in Speermint, today. SPEERMINT SIP Interconnect Guidelines (Presented by: Daryl Malas) ====================================================== Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-02 The working group agreed on the mailing list and through a brief discussion in the working group to accept this as a working group item. The authors are encouraged to submit it as a working group draft with the next revision. Also, the name of the draft should be "SIP Peering Interconnect Guidelines". JON PETERSON on Requirement Entity (slide 5): Make sure that the interconnect spec describes what the SIP traffic between domains looks like (must comply with) WITHOUT RESPECT TO WHAT ELEMENT makes this happen or how it is achieved. IMPORTANT POINT / KEY CHANGE!! On Extension Negotiation (slide 6): Debate over whether the SBE may or may not support configuration controls to disable certain extensions between domains, based on bi-lateral agreements. Example is PRACK 100rel. JON PETERSON: Questions the value of this statement on slide 6. Not very interoperability-friendly. Will diminish the value of SIP and end-point negotiation. COULD live with the text IF you add some text about how this really limits the value of SIP and asks domains if they really want to do something like that. ROBERT SPARKS: Very worried that this is greatly limiting on the functionality of SIP. JON PETERSON: Need to balance control and innovation. Do not want to make service creation more challenging. The document really, really needs to explain the real trade-offs involved here. JASON LIVINGOOD: When you update the list with new text to address this issue, please send a note to the list asking for targeted feedback on that section. Initial INVITE with no SDP (slide 7): No comments Early media from multi-endpoints (slide 8): No comments Call forward loop detection (slide 9): Somewhat confusing final bullets on Moving Forward. Use the 1st two bullets, ignore the 3rd bullet. Thus, mandate support for a single loop detection mechanism (H-I header), and allow support for multiple loop-detection mechanisms, and specify how they interwork. ROBERT SPARKS: Diversion header may be ÔuniversalÕ but there is a great deal of variation in the wild and a lack of interoperability. Auto-recall and callback (slide 10): No comments JIM MCEACHERN: Re: ATIS and what they are doing. Would be a good idea off-line to work out how to get ATIS and SPEERMINT to be closely aligned, as well as ITU-T, CableLabs, 3GPP, etc. Chairs to follow-up off-line with Jim. SPEERMINT Security Threats and Suggested Countermeasures ====================================================== Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-01 Jan Seerdorf provided a quick update on the status of the draft. He said they will update the draft soon, at least before the end of the year. There were some open issues on DNSSEC to be worked out with Peter Koch. Peter promised he would follow-up on this in the meeting. :-) >end.