2.8.14 Session Initiation Proposal Investigation (sipping)
In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:
http://softarmor.com/sipping -- Additional SIPPING Web Page
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 58th IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA. It may now be out-of-date.
Last Modified: 2003-10-16
Chair(s):
Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
Rohan Mahy <rohan@cisco.com>
Transport Area Director(s):
Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Transport Area Advisor:
Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: sipping@ietf.org
To Subscribe: sipping-request@ietf.org
In Body: (un)subscribe
Archive: www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/sipping/current/maillist.html
Description of Working Group:
The Session Initiation Protocol Project INvestiGation (SIPPING)
working group is chartered to document the use of SIP for several
applications related to telephony and multimedia, and to develop
requirements for any extensions to SIP needed for those applications.
Such requirements will be referred to the SIP working group for
development of any new SIP method or header. Guiding principles for
the performance of SIPPING's work will include:
1. Documenting the requirements of specific chartered tasks.
2. Documenting the usage of SIP to solve real problems that need to
be solved in a standardized way.
3. Looking for commonalities among the chartered tasks and other
ongoing SIP-related development, as commonalities may indicate need
for general, reusable functionality in SIP.
4. Describing the requirements for any extension determined to be
needed, and handing them to the SIP WG.
5. Develop procedures and requirements for configuration and delivery
of
SIP User Profiles
Besides performing needed specification of several applications
of SIP, SIPPING can be seen as also working out use cases that
clarify the role of SIP in the Internet, and help to ensure that
Occam's razor is appropriately applied to SIP usage.
The security of all the deliverables will be of special importance.
The technology for security will be keyed from a SIP security
specification developed (in progress now) by the SIP Working Group.
The specific tasks for SIPPING will be:
1. PSTN and/or 3G telephony-equivalent applications that need a
standardized approach
- informational guide to common call flows
- support for T.38 fax
- requirements from 3GPP for SIP usage
- framework of SIP for telephony (SIP-T)
- call transfer and call forwarding
- AAA application in SIP telephony
- mapping between SIP and ISUP
2. Messaging-like applications of SIP -
- support for hearing-/speech-impaired calling
- development of usage guidelines for subscribe-notify (RFC 2848,
SIP events) to ensure commonality among applications using them,
including SIMPLE WG's instant messaging.
3. Multi-party applications of SIP
- the working group will review a number of technical pieces
including call transfer, subscribe-notify, SIP features
negotiation, and session description protocol (SDP) capability
negotiation, and will develop requirements and an initial design
or framework for multi-party conferencing with SIP.
4. SIP calling to media servers
- the working group will develop a requirements draft for an
approach to SIP interaction with media servers. An example is
whether a voicemail server is just a box that a caller can send
an INVITE to.
At a later time, the working group and chairs may request
of the Area Directors that new tasks be added to the charter.
Such additions to the charter will require IESG approval.
The group will work very closely with SIP working group.
The group will also maintain open dialogue with the IPTEL working
group, whose Call Processing Language (CPL) related to the task
areas in a number of ways. The group will also coordinate closely
with SIMPLE, AAA, and MMUSIC (SDP development).
SIPPING will also ensure compatibility with the work done
by the now concluded PINT working group. SIPPING will encourage
active participation from the Distributed Call Signaling (DCS) Group
of the PacketCable Consortium for distributed telephony services, 3GPP,
3GPP2, and several ITU-T study groups.
Goals and Milestones:
Done | | Submit Internet-Draft on SIP-Telephony Framework to IESG
for consideration as a BCP |
Done | | Submit Internet-Draft on ISUP-SIP Mapping to IESG for
consideration as Proposed Standard |
Done | | Submit Internet-Draft on Requirements for use of SIP to
support telephony for the Hearing-Impaired to IESG for
consideration as an Informational RFC |
Done | | Submit SIP 3rd party call control to IESG for consideration
as BCP |
Done | | Submit Internet-Draft on 3G Requirements to IESG for
consideration as an Informational RFC |
Done | | Submit Internet-Draft on Mapping ISUP Overlap Signaling to
SIP to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard |
Done | | Submit Internet-Draft on Usage Guideline for Events
(Subscribe-Notify) to IESG for consideration as an
Informational RFC |
Done | | Submit Internet-Drafts Basic and PSTN Call Flows to IESG
fro consideration as BCPs |
Done | | Requirements for Content Indirection in SIP |
Done | | Submit Message Waiting SIP event package to IESG for
consideration as PS |
Mar 03 | | Submit Internet-Draft on Call Transfer using REFER to IESG
for consideration as a BCP |
Mar 03 | | Using ENUM with SIP Applications to IESG for consideration
as an Informational RFC |
Apr 03 | | Submit Call Info SIP event package to IESG for
consideration as PS |
Apr 03 | | Requirements for Reuse of Connections in SIP |
Jun 03 | | Submit Internet-Draft on T.38 Fax Call Flows to IESG for
consideration as a BCP |
Jun 03 | | Submit Conf Info SIP event package to IESG for
consideration as PS |
Jun 03 | | Requirements for SIP Request History |
Jun 03 | | Event Package for User Configuration Profiles |
Aug 03 | | Submit Internet-Draft on Multi-Party/Conferencing Framework
to IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC |
Done | | Submit Internet-Draft on Requirements for AAA Application
in SIP Telephony to IESG for consideration as an
Informational RFC |
Oct 03 | | Sip Interworking with QSIG |
Nov 03 | | Review charter with Area Directors and recharter or
conclude |
Nov 03 | | Submit Internet-Draft Torture Tests to IESG for
Consideration as Informational |
Internet-Drafts:
- draft-ietf-sipping-e164-04.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-service-examples-05.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-cc-framework-03.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-3pcc-05.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-mwi-03.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-03.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-conference-package-02.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-pstn-call-flows-02.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-basic-call-flows-02.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-torture-tests-01.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-req-history-04.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-aaa-req-03.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-3gpp-r5-requirements-00.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-reg-event-00.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-qsig2sip-03.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-01.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-cc-conferencing-02.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-conferencing-requirements-00.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-conferencing-framework-01.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-session-policy-req-00.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-callerprefs-usecases-00.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-kpml-01.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-event-throttle-reqs-00.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-early-media-00.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-app-interaction-framework-00.txt
- draft-ietf-sipping-e2m-sec-reqs-00.txt
Request For Comments:
RFC | Status | Title |
RFC3351 | I | User Requirements for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) in Support of Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Speech-impaired individuals |
RFC3372 | BCP | Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Telephones (SIP-T): Context and Architectures |
RFC3324 | I | Short Term Requirements for Network Asserted Identity |
RFC3398 | PS | Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) User Part (ISUP) to Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Mapping |
RFC3485 | PS | The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Session Description Protocol (SDP) Static Dictionary for Signaling Compression (SigComp) |
RFC3578 | PS | Mapping of of Integrated Services Digital Network (ISUP) Overlap Signalling to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
Current Meeting Report
Minutes, SIPPING WG, IETF 58
Notes by Brian Rosen and Francois Audet
Minutes edited by Gonzalo Camarillo
Meetings chaired by Gonzalo Camarillo, Rohan Mahy, Dean Willis
Session 1, Tuesday November 11, 2003 0900-1130
====================================
Topic: Agenda
Agenda accepted as previously posted.
Topic: Announcements and
Status
Chairs mention that they will provide an updated list of milestones for
the working group in the second session. MSCML will proceed as an
informational individual contribution. There are still some security
concerns with the Q.SIG work, but they will probably be resolved soon.
The chairs mentioned the existance of draft-manyfolks-sipping-tiop.
Slides presented reviewing status of working group documents.
pres-chairs-agendaandstatus-sipping-ietf58.ppt
Topic: Application
Interaction
Relevant document:
draft-ietf-sipping-app-interaction-framework
Slides presented
pres-rosenberg-app-int.ppt
Discussion led by Jonathan Rosenberg
Issue: how to deliver DTMF. The current draft proposes two different
mechanisms, one based on REFER and HTTP for presentation capable UAs
and the other based on SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY for presentation free UAs.
Discussion: It should still be possible to use KPML with other
transport mechanisms. We need to think of the security implications of
this work. Are servers supposed to be in the signalling path or can
they obtain the scripts using some other means, such as the dialog
package?
Conclusion: Strong consensus on documenting both mechanisms and provide
recommendations on how to use them.
Topic: Event Package for
DTMF Signals
Relevant document:
draft-zebarth-sipping-dtmfad
Slides presented:
pres-zebarth-dtmf-package.ppt
Discussion led by Joe Zebarth
Presentation: a mechanism to transport DTMF to implement prepaid
services is needed soon (end of Q1 2004.) The mechanism proposed (an
event package) is complementary to KPML because it moves the processing
intensity from the Notifier to app server.
Discussion: The real difference between KMPL and this approach is the
number of events per digit.
Conclusion: T1 writes a liaison to the IETF indicating their timeframe.
If it is possible to meet their deadlines with KPML, the WG prefers not
to duplicate standards track work.
Topic: Key Press Stimulus
Protocol
Relevant document:
draft-ietf-sipping-kpml
Slides presented:
pres-burger-kpml.ppt
Discussion led by Eric Burger
Issue: is the SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY mechanism OK?
Conclusion: no onjection to immediate NOTIFY with empty body.
Issue: three ways to specify digit maps.
Discussion: requiring three mechanisms is too much. A negotiation using
an Accept-like mechanism could be appropriate.
Conclusion: continue discussions on the list.
Topic: Conferencing
Design Team Report
Relevant Documents:
draft-ietf-sipping-conference-package
draft-ietf-sipping-cc-conferencing
Slides presented:
pres-johnston-conferencing.ppt
Discussion led by Alan Johnston
Presentation: Framework needs one more revision to align with GRUU.
Conference package needs some work to align with XCON.
Issue: side bars.
Conclusion: It will probably be an XCON document. The framework will
talk about them.
Topic: Transcoding Design
Team
Relevant documents:
draft-camarillo-sipping-transc-3pcc
draft-camarillo-sipping-transc-framework
draft-camarillo-sipping-transc-b2bua
draft-camarillo-mmusic-source-sink
Slides presented:
pres-camarillo-transcoding.ppt
Discussion led by Gonzalo Camarillo
Conclusion: strong consensus on adding milestones for the framework,
the conf bridge model, and the 3pcc model. Strong consensus on adopting
the framework and the 3pcc documents as WG items for those milestones.
The design team prefers to wait until the exploders work is completed
before asking the WG to adopt the conf bridge model as a WG item.
Topic: Emergency Calls
Design Team
Relevant document:
draft-taylor-sipping-emerg-scen
Slides presented:
pres-taylor-emergency.ppt
Discussion led by Tom Taylor
Issue: Intermediaries need to insert location information (e.g., phones
without emergency support and phones not recognizing emergency calls.)
Discussion: Should this intermediaries be existing SIP entities (e.g.,
proxies or B2BUAs) or can they be something special?
Conclusion: more discussions needed.
Comment: NENA has two WGs working on these issues and will provide
SIPPING with requirements.
Comment: hearing impaired users need to be taken into account.
Topic: Event Package for
User Configuration Profiles
Relevant document:
draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework
Slides presented:
pres-petrie-config.ppt
Discussion led by Dan Petrie
Issue: can we use XCAP?
Discussions: There are other protocols that could do the job as well,
and the initial idea was to be protocol agnostic.
Comment: Are we talking into consideration wireless issues?
Issue: which security mechanisms need to be mandatory to implement?
Conclusion: Organize a conference call and report to the list.
Topic: Intermediary
Session Policies in SIP
Relevant documents:
draft-ietf-sipping-session-policy-req
draft-hilt-sipping-session-indep-policy
draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy
Slides presented:
pres-hilt-session-policy.ppt
Discussion led by Volker Hilt
Issue: two-pass model vs. three-pass model.
Conclusion: two-pass model is the way to go.
Conclusion: strong negative on sending the documents to SIP. They still
need more work.
Topic: Reason Header for
Preemption
Relevant document:
draft-polk-sipping-reason-header-for-preemption
Slides presented:
pres-polk-reason.ppt
Discussion led by James Polk
Issue: use a single or multiple namespaces.
Conclusion: use a single namespace.
Conclusion: progress as an individual contribution.
Topic: Location
Conveyance Requirements
Relevant document:
draft-polk-sipping-location-requirements
Discussion led by Brian Rosen
Issue: should we use bodies or headers.
Issue: we need to analyze the security implications of this work.
Conclusion: strong consensus on adding a milestone for this work and to
take this document as a WG item for that milestone.
Topic: Transfer Issues
Relevant document:
draft-petrie-sipping-xfer-issues
Slides presented:
pres-petrie-xfer.ppt
Discussion led by Dan Petrie
No conclusions.
Session 2, Thursday, November 13, 2003, 1530-1730
=====================================
Topic: Agenda
Jonathan Rosenberg will present NAT scenarios in MMUSIC instead.
Chairs presented an updated list of milestones for the WG.
Topic: Requirements for
end-to-middle security
Relevant document:
draft-ietf-sipping-e2m-sec-reqs
Slides presented:
pres-ono-e2m.ppt
Discussion led by Kumiko Ono
Presentation: difference between e2m and m2e. e2m requires discovery.
Issue: manipulation of bodies by intermediaries.
Discussions: a re-direction model where the UA is the one that inserts
the body might be an alternative, although it may introduce long delays.
Topic: Requirements for
e2m and m2e
Relevant document:
draft-barnes-sipping-sec-inserted-info
Slides presented:
pres-barnes-sec-int.ppt
Discussion led by Mary Barnes
Issue: shall we look at m2m as well?
Issue: trust model.
Issue: mechanism to challenge intermediaries.
Issue: intermediaries manipulating message bodies.
Conclusion: further discussions in the mailing list needed.
Topic: Role(trait)-Based
Authorization
Relevant document:
draft-peterson-sipping-role-authz
Discussion led by Jon Peterson
Conclusion: strong consensus of making it a WG item.
Topic: On-demand Access
Authorization
Relevant document:
draft-trossen-sipping-ondemand
Slides presented:
pres-trossen-on-demand-auth.ppt
Discussion led by Dirk Trossen
Discussion: XCAP meets many, but not all the requirements.
Conclusion: the work is relevant, but we need more convincing use cases.
Topic: Early Media
Relevant documentss:
draft-ietf-sipping-early-media-00.txt
draft-camarillo-sipping-early-disposition-00.txt
Slides presented:
pres-camarillo-early-media.ppt
Discussion led by Gonzalo Camarillo
Conclusion: strong consensus on making the early media disposition type
draft a WG item.
Topic: IPv4/IPv6
Translators in 3GPP Networks
Relevant documents:
draft-elmalki-sipping-3gpp-translator
Slides presented:
pres-camarillo-v4v6.ppt
Discussion led by Gonzalo Camarillo
Discussion: This work should take place in SIPPING with support from
v6ops.
Conclusion: group of volunteers will help with this work: Marcus
Brunner, Roni Even, Keith Drage, and Dirk Kutscher.
Topic: Exploders
Relevant document:
draft-camarillo-sipping-exploders
Slides presented:
pres-camarillo-exploders.ppt
Discussion led by Gonzalo Camarillo
Discussion: this is definitively interesting, but the WG is too busy to
tackle more work right now.
Conclusion: continue mailing list discussions.
Topic: Dialog Event
Package
Relevant document:
draft-ietf-sipping.dialog-package
Slides presented:
pres-mahy-dialog-pkg.ppt
Discussion led by Rohan Mahy
Presentation: many changes introduced in the last revision of the
document. It needs substantial review.
Discussion: Rohan Mahy will send in two weeks an example of how people
can present that they are busy doing something.
Discussion: need to clarify what people mean by "hold indicator".
Conclusion: further discussions to the mailing list.
Topic: SIP Torture Test
Relevant document:
draft-ietf-sipping-torture-tests
Slides presented:
pres-sparks-sipping-torturetests-ietf58.ppt
Discussion led by Robert Sparks
Presentation: lots of changes introduced in the last revision. Review
needed.
Conclusion: we gathered volunteers to review all the messages.
Topic: SIP Load Management
Relevant document:
draft-sparks-sipping-load
Slides presented:
pres-sparks-sipping-load-ietf58.ppt
Discussion led by Robert Sparks
Conclusion: strong consensus on the fact that this is interesting work.
Let us keep in on the list for now.
Topic: Even Notification
Throttling
Relevant document:
draft-niemi-sipping-event-throttle
Slides presented:
pres-niemi-throttle.pdf
Discussion led by Aki Niemi
Discussion: this is important work for SIMPLE.
Issue: should we send this to SIP?
Conclusion: Folks should send their concerns to the list if they
believe this should not be sent to SIP. If concerns are small enough,
this will be moved SIP. Otherwise, it will stay in SIPPING longer.
Topic: RTCP Summary
Report Delivery
Relevant document:
draft-johnston-sipping-rtcp-summary
Slides presented:
pres-clark-rtcp.ppt
Discussion led by Alan Clark
Discussion: scope should be clarified. Does this only apply to VoIP?
Discussion: do entities need to report about both directions, send and
recv?
ACTION ITEMS
1) Receive a liaison from T1 and see whether or not KPML can meet their
deadlines.
2) Chairs to discuss with ADs adding milestones for the transcoding
framework, the conf bridge model, and the 3pcc model.
3) Chairs to discuss with ADs making
draft-camarillo-sipping-transc-3pcc and
draft-camarillo-sipping-transc-framework WG items.
4) Dan Petrie organizes a conference call on XCAP usage for
configuration.
5) Chairs to discuss with ADs adding milestone for the location
conveyance requirements.
6) Chairs to discuss with ADs making
draft-polk-sipping-location-requirements a WG item.
7) Chairs to discuss with ADs adding milestone for role based
authentication.
8) Chairs to discuss with ADs making draft-peterson-sipping-role-authz
a WG item.
9) Dirk Trossen to provide the WG with use cases on on-demand access
authorization.
10) Chairs to discuss with ADs adding milestone for early media
disposition type or use the general early media milestone for this.
11) Chairs to discuss with ADs making
draft-camarillo-sipping-early-disposition a WG item.
12) Chairs to make sure that Marcus Brunner, Roni Even, Keith Drage,
and Dirk Kutscher help with the IPv4/IPv4 translators in 3GPP networks
work.
13) Chairs to have volunteers review the SIP torture tests.
14) Chairs to check whether or not there are relevant concerns on the
Event Notification Throttling work. Otherwise, send it to SIP.
|
Slides
Agenda
A SIP Event Package for DTMF Event Monitoring
SIP Session Policies
App Interaction Framework
Emergency Calling Services
Transcoding Design Team
Reason Header for Preemption
KPML
Update on SIP Conferencing
Transfer Issues
Event Package for User Profiles
IPv6-IPv4 Translation mechanism for SIP-based services in 3GPP Networks
Requirements for SIP Exploder Invocation
Early Media
On-Demand Access Authorization for SIP Event Subscriptions
RTCP Summary Report Delivery to SIP Third Parties
NAT Scenarios
Requirements for end-to-middle security for SIP
Event Notification Throttles
The Dialog Package
A Mechanism to Secure SIP Information inserted by Intermediaries
SIP Torture Tests
SIP Load Management