IETF CUSS WG Virtual Meeting II Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 9:00 AM - 10:20 AM CHICAGO Note takers: Enrico Marocco and Leon Portman Attendees on WebEx: Vijay Gurbani Enrico Marocco Laura Liess Alan Johnston John Elwell Andrew Hutton Jerry Robinson Keith Drage Leon Portman Paul Kyzivat Frank Williams Frederique Forestier Agenda bashed, no changes. Slides: http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/cuss/cuss-interim-2/agenda.pdf Problem statement and requirements, Alan Johnston Slides: http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/cuss/cuss-interim-2/pres-cuss-reqs-01.pdf Internet-Draft: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Went through substantive changes in the current version of the document. The following records the specific slides where discussion occurred. An absence of a slide discussing requirements implies that the meeting participants did not have any comments on it. Slide 4: Keith stated that REQ-13 and REQ-14 may not be supported over PSTN. Alan to clarify this in the next revision by stating that these requirements are only pertinent when used between two SIP UAs. Slide 6: REQ-3 changed to include UUI insertion and retrieval in referrals. Keith noted that in ISDN, insertion by intermediaries is not supported and that the UUI is inserted and consumed by endpoints. Alan agreed to clarify in next revision. Slide 7: Proposed change involved changing "dialog" to a "call". Discussion ensued on what exactly the definition of a "call" is. If it is an association between two endpoints, then a SUBS request will satisfy that requirement as well. Alan will clarify by replacing "call" with text that states the UUI will go only in INVITE, 2xx and BYE. Slide 9: There was much discussion on slide 9, the result of which was the following: Alan will propose a new requirement for carrying multiple UUIs that can be distinguished (i.e., when they were inserted). In addition, REQ-3 will be clarified. Slide 10: Discussions ensued, but no changes were proposed to the requirement. However, there was an understanding that authentication needs to be further discussed in the mechanism draft, especially in cases where redirection is done in trusted domains. Slide 11: Discussion ensued about the response growing bigger if multiple UUIs are inserted in a response to the point that the response cannot be sent over UDP (and conversely, cannot use TCP since the request came over UDP). Option tags are a way to mitigate this. Alan agreed to add some text in the mechanism draft discussing UUI in response. Slide 12: Discussion ensued on discovery aspects of UUI (i.e., REQ-10 through the use of OPTIONS). A decision was made that UUI does not apply to OPTIONS. Next steps from the chair's perspective: The document is scheduled to go to IESG in Dec-2010. If Alan can revise the document and there is list consensus that the revision satisfies the WG, then a WGLC can be scheduled. If the revised document raises other concerns, it may be best to deal with these concerns by getting related parties on a conference bridge and present the outcome of the discussions to the WG and produce a revision that can subsequently be WGLC'd. UUI Mechanism, Alan Johnston Slides: http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/cuss/cuss-interim-2/pres-ccus-mech-01.pdf Internet-Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Went through substantive changes in current version of the document. Slide 7 triggered a discussion on the specific mechanism that the WG should come up with. Question asked of chairs on selecting a solution. The chairs polled the meeting participants on whether anyone had an objection to going with the header field approach. No one had any objections. A decision was made to ratify the header approach on the list. Chairs will send an email on the list asking for ratification. Closing remarks, Vijay K. Gurbani (as chair) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Currently, we do not see a need for a f2f meeting in Prague. To move the work forward quickly, we can facilitate conference calls among the key motivators of the work and fill the WG in with the results of these conference calls. If there is a need to have a third virtual meeting, we can do so before Prague. There is one more draft to be adopted --- the Interworking ISDN call control draft --- after we have reached consensus on the mechanism draft. Keith noted that we need to have a mechanism draft to drive useful work forward. Meeting adjourned at 10:20 AM CHICAGO TIME.