[SIPForum-techwg] FW: Conference Call Confirmation Feb 24 10 AM

[Spencer Dawkins]

So were there any objections to removing all references to SIPS from the 
draft?

Thanks,

Spencer


> We agreed on the call that we would just delete the 4 references to SIPS
> in 10.1.5, and leave the stuff in 6.2 alone. However, I would also be
> comfortable with the proposal below.
>
> John
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet at nortel.com]
>> Sent: 24 February 2009 17:02
>> To: Hadriel Kaplan; Elwell, John; Cullen Jennings
>> Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
>> Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] FW: Conference Call
>> Confirmation Feb 24 10 AM
>>
>> That would be the other alternative: no mention whatsoever.
>> I'm ok with that too.
>>
>> It could be a job for 2.0.
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan at acmepacket.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 07:06
>> > To: Elwell, John; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Cullen Jennings
>> > Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
>> > Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] FW: Conference Call
>> > Confirmation Feb 24 10 AM
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually, why don't we get realistic/pragmatic and actually
>> > not mention SIPS whatsoever.  It is so rare, and so confusing
>> > to folks, that I don't know why we'd even want to cover it in
>> > the spec.
>> >
>> > -hadriel
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
>> > [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
>> > > On Behalf Of Elwell, John
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:41 AM
>> > > To: Francois Audet; Cullen Jennings
>> > > Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
>> > > Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] FW: Conference Call
>> > Confirmation Feb 24
>> > > 10 AM
>> > >
>> > > I agree with both Francois and Cullen that we should not
>> > mandate SIPS,
>> > > but my main point is that for all header fields where we
>> > discuss URI
>> > > forms (e.g, Request-URI, PAI, From, To, Route) we need to
>> > specify what
>> > > to do if you receive SIPS.
>> > >
>> > > John
>> > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet at nortel.com]
>> > > > Sent: 24 February 2009 00:53
>> > > > To: Cullen Jennings; Elwell, John
>> > > > Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
>> > > > Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] FW: Conference Call
>> > Confirmation Feb
>> > > > 24 10 AM
>> > > >
>> > > > The first statement is just saying that IF SIPS is
>> used, then it
>> > > > must be as per draft-ietf-sip-sips. This is a valid and useful
>> > > > requirement, as otherwise, people may want to use SIPS
>> as per RFC
>> > > > 3261, which we all know had lots of problems.
>> > > >
>> > > > I do agree that we don't want to mandate SIPS in this spec.
>> > > >
>> > > > My take is that we should keep the original statement,
>> > but we should
>> > > > also add some warning describing that when you support SIPS, it
>> > > > means that if the call can not be completed using TLS
>> on each and
>> > > > every hop on the path, the call will fail (by design).
>> So, before
>> > > > using SIPS, you have to make sure that is really the
>> behavior you
>> > > > want.
>> > > > I believe that there is very few cases initially where
>> > that would be
>> > > > the desired behavior.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
>> > > > > [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of
>> > Cullen Jennings
>> > > > > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 15:27
>> > > > > To: Elwell, John
>> > > > > Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
>> > > > > Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] FW: Conference Call
>> Confirmation
>> > > > > Feb 24 10 AM
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Feb 23, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Elwell, John wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > 3. SIPS. There is a normative statement in 6.2: "If
>> SIPS URIs
>> > > > > > are used, usage MUST be as specified in
>> > > > [draft-ietf-sip-sips]". This is
>> > > > > > the only normative statement. , I find it not very
>> > helpful for
>> > > > > > interoperability. It does not state whether a SIP-PBX or
>> > > > an SP-SSE
>> > > > > > MUST or MAY support SIPS. In fact, looking at the
>> rest of the
>> > > > > > document, I find SIPS mentioned only in 10.1.5 (PAI
>> > for incoming
>> > > > > > calls) and nowhere else. For example, an enterprise
>> > > > public identity
>> > > > > > cannot be a SIPS URI. I think we agreed at an early
>> > stage not to
>> > > > > > mandate SIPS, but I think we need further discussion on the
>> > > > > > implications (e.g., an entity not supporting SIPS but
>> > > > > receiving a SIPS
>> > > > > > URI in From, PAI, Request-URI, To etc. )
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't think that mandating support for SIPS solves
>> many real
>> > > > > world problem so unless someone has a good reason why
>> > to mandate
>> > > > > it, I'd rather not.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > techwg mailing list
>> > > > > Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
>> > > > > Unsubscribe or edit options at:
>> > > > > http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > techwg mailing list
>> > > Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
>> > > Unsubscribe or edit options at:
>> > > http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>> >
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at: 
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>