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

Mon Apr 6 23:15:26 EDT 2009

No objections here. 

> From: spencer at wonderhamster.org
> To: john.elwell at siemens.com; audet at nortel.com; HKaplan at acmepacket.com; fluffy at cisco.com
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:04:30 -0500
> CC: techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] FW: Conference Call Confirmation Feb 24 10 AM
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:  http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/attachments/20090406/5e91e759/attachment-0001.html 