DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
(As WG cochair)
The group with current scope for this work is SIP. Therefore if the SIP
WG believes it can make progress in identifying valid work in the SIP
timeframe, the chairs can ask the RAI ADs for a charter milestone. The
ADs can choose to direct that milestone to some other group if they so
wish.
There is a separate RAIarea agenda slot where people can discuss their
ideas on future RAI WG structure. That discussion does not need to
impact on whether this is valid IETF work or not.
So core to the discussion is whether we feel we can get an agreement for
a suitable area of identity related work in Minneapolis based on
discussion of this draft. If the answer is no, the chairs will push it
down the priority order in allocating agenda slots. If the answer is yes
then we push it up the priority. (Note that the same applies for all the
other active identity related documents).
Note also that we would also like to see any discussion in this area
bringing in new issues and points. There is little point in the same
people standing up at the mic and saying the same things they said in
Dublin, as presumably, we will end up with the same absence of decision.
With this in mind, the chairs welcome discussion on this list, and in
private emails, to see if something can come out of this.
I'm wondering if other WG participants would agree with me that "verifying
who is sending me this SIP request is who he claims to be in the simplest
possible way (i.e., without other protocols and infrastructures) by reverse
lookup" would be an appropriate goal.
The number of drafts and emails posted to this topic and more importantly
the problems in the field indicate this is a real and important problem.
Additionally, it seems that folks are interested in something VERY simple.
An implication of that to me is this effort is small and self-contained,
and shall stay so on purpose. From the sizing perspective, the SIP WG thus
seems more appropriate to me than more general (and bigger) fora, and also
it does not seem big enough to me for its own WG.
For sake of completeness: Many of the points raised so far appear to relate
to a solution rather than to question the problem: SUB/NOT versus OPTIONS,
"B2BUA traversal", as well as those not addressed yet much: reverse
routability,
latency, security considerations....
-jiri
Regards
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dean Willis
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:54 AM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip] Comment on DERIVE and B2BUAs
On Oct 29, 2008, at 9:21 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
Let's talk about the meta-issue: do we want assurance of a "From:"
over SBCs? If so, let us please convince the ADs in
Minneapolis and
let us please get a new SIP milestone.
I'd rather charter a SIP RRC working group than put a new
milestone in SIP.
This seems like a perfect item for a working group that could
conclude in a reasonable and timely fashion.
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
