Jon & Cullen,
Here are my last call comments on the document.
Overall, I like the approach and support moving forward with it, but I
have a few questions that I think should be answered clearly in this
document.
1. Section 4 talks about header field extensions, and the abandonment of
P-headers is a great thing (I've always thought the P stood for
Punishment...) However, it is silent about the registration of URI and
header parameters. Could we come up with a mechanism to simplify
registration of these extensions? In some cases, SIP interop would be
improved.
2. Section 4 is also silent about defining SIP option tags. In the
past, a P-header could not have a corresponding SIP option tag. I
understand the concern about interop being affected by option tags in
Require and Proxy-Require header fields, however, the inability to have
an option tag for Supported and to use with RFC3840 caller preferences
is a major limitation. As such, we are left without a discovery
mechanism which leads to feature profiling and resulting interop
failures. The document should discuss these issues and lay out the
preferred mechanism. If the mechanism is to deny option tags, then a
method for discovery needs to be outlined.
Other items that relate to the document but the answers do not
necessarily belong in this document:
3. How will some existing SIPPING work be handled? Some of this work
needs WG review but will be outside the scope of both SIPCORE and
DISPATCH. And forming a BOF in order to progress a single draft seems
silly.
4. In the security considerations of most SIP extensions, we inevitably
end up referring to S/MIME. However, we know that there is no S/MIME
deployments with SIP, essentially making the resulting security
considerations irrelevant. Perhaps some guidance on practical security
considerations would be worthwhile going forward, given the heavy
reliance on hop-by-hop security and transitive trust in deployed SIP
systems.
Thanks,
Alan
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Last Call: draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis (Change Process for
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)) to Proposed Standard
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Reply-To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) '
<draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2009-04-07. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis-01.txt
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=16984&rfc_flag=0
The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf