Subject: [dispatch] TCP and SCTP connection reuse draft

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:09:48 -0500

Folks: Before the summer, we had released a new
TCP/SCTP connection reuse draft in the (now defunct) SIP
WG.  With the formation of dispatch, we were advised to
submit it to dispatch for a decision on where to handle
this work.

Essentially, the draft documents the practice of reusing TCP
(and SCTP) connections that is employed by some SIP
implementations today.  TCP and SCTP transport reuse were
originally a part of the draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse draft,
but were taken out before we progressed that draft to the IESG.

Can we kindly ask the dispatch WG to review and comment on
the the TCP and SCTP connection reuse draft?  All comments
received from the first iteration of the draft in the SIP WG
have been duly addressed in this version.

It will also be helpful if the WG and chairs could provide
some guidance on how to move this work forward (i.e.,
AD-sponsored individual draft, take it to sipcore, etc.)

The draft can be retrieved from:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jain-dispatch-sip-transport-connection-reuse-00

Thank you,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:14:10 -0500

Vijay

wrt the transport aspects of this ID, shouldn't the folks in the 
transport area be contacted?

TCPM WG currently controls any TCP related efforts, and TSVWG 
controls all SCTP related efforts.

James

At 11:09 AM 9/9/2009, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>dispatch mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:53:25 -0500

James M. Polk wrote:
> TCPM WG currently controls any TCP related efforts, and TSVWG controls 
> all SCTP related efforts.

James: That's an interesting comment.  However, we are not
proposing any changes to TCP or SCTP, so I am not sure that
TCPM and TSVWG will be interested in this particular work.

That said, I think TSVWG may be interested in eye-balling
this document since SCTP is (still) relatively new and
not many SIP implementations exist that do SCTP connection reuse
today.  Maybe this draft could be expert reviewed by someone
from TSVWG to make sure that our use of SCTP is indeed
within the norm?  I think this may be a good idea.

Thank you for your time and comment.

- vijay

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:05:40 -0500

>within the norm?  I think this may be a good idea.

I think this may be a good idea too...

I wonder who you can get to ask for volunteers in TSVWG?

;-)

James

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:17:37 -0700

The security of this draft seems, uh, bad. It's so bad that I am  
having a really hard time believing I actually am understanding it  
correctly. Help me make sure that I have this right.

Cisco and ACME are part of the AT&T trust domain and get sip trunking  
from AT&T. Cisco sends a via that has ACME on the alias to AT&T. There  
is nothing AT&T can do to validate this. Now Cisco has hijacked all of  
ACME's call. If the trust domain consisted of just one party, well I  
see how this might be secure, sort of, but it seems to fall apart as  
the trust domain expands.

Cullen <with my individual contributor hat on>