Subject: [dispatch] Revised Proposed Session-ID Charter

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:00:09 -0500

Folks,

I've not seen much discussion on this topic over the past month.  Even so,
I've not seen any objection to proceeding work.  The only concern raised
recently is around the definition of the word "session", to which we're
proposing to make that a part of the first deliverable.

What do we need to do in order to move this work forward?

Paul

PS - The charter text that seems to have reached general acceptance is below

End-to-end Session Identifier in SIP (charter proposal)

The end-to-end Session Identifier in SIP-based multimedia communication
networks refers to the ability for endpoints, intermediate devices, and
management and monitoring system to identify and correlate SIP messages and
dialogs of the same higher-level end-to-end "communication session" across
multiple SIP devices, hops, and administrative domains.

Unfortunately, there are a number of factors that contribute to the fact
that the current dialog identifiers defined in SIP is not suitable for
end-to-end session identification. Perhaps the most important factor worth
describing is that in real-world deployments Back-to-Back User Agents
(B2BUAs) devices like Session Border Controllers (SBC) often change the call
identifiers (e.g., the From-tag and To-tag that are used in conjunction with
the Call-ID header to make the dialog-id) as the session signaling passes
through.

An end-to-end Session Identifier should allow the possibility to identify
the communication session from the point of origin, passing through any
number of intermediaries, to the ultimate point of termination. It should
have the same aim as the From-tag, To-tag and Call-ID conjunction, but
should not be mangled by intermediaries.  Consideration must be given to the
fact that the entities involved in a communication session might change as a
result of service interaction in the network, such as call transfers, joins,
etc. 

A SIP end-to-end Session Identifier has been considered as possible solution
of different use cases like troubleshooting, billing, session tracking,
session recording, media and signaling correlation, and so forth.  Some of
these requirements have also been identified and come directly from other
Existing working group within the RAI area (e.g. SIPRec, Splices).

Moreover, other standards organizations have identified the need for SIP and
H.323 to carry the same "session ID" value(s) so that it is possible to
identify a call end-to end even when performing interworking between
protocols.

The working group will produce the following deliverables:

1. A requirement and use case document with key consideration for SIP
Session End-to-End Identification, including the definition of a "session"

2. Specification of new end-to-end Session Identifier mechanism

Goal and Milestone:

August 2012 - Requirement and use case document sent to the IESG
(Informational)

March 2013 - Specification of the new mechanism sent to the IESG (PS)

---

From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:35:15 +0000

Paul,

I like to see this charter moving forward.

Thanks
Partha

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 11:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dispatch] Revised Proposed Session-ID Charter

Folks,

I've not seen much discussion on this topic over the past month.  Even so, I've not seen any objection to proceeding work.  The only concern raised recently is around the definition of the word "session", to which we're proposing to make that a part of the first deliverable.

Paul

The end-to-end Session Identifier in SIP-based multimedia communication networks refers to the ability for endpoints, intermediate devices, and management and monitoring system to identify and correlate SIP messages and dialogs of the same higher-level end-to-end "communication session" across multiple SIP devices, hops, and administrative domains.

Unfortunately, there are a number of factors that contribute to the fact that the current dialog identifiers defined in SIP is not suitable for end-to-end session identification. Perhaps the most important factor worth describing is that in real-world deployments Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUAs) devices like Session Border Controllers (SBC) often change the call identifiers (e.g., the From-tag and To-tag that are used in conjunction with the Call-ID header to make the dialog-id) as the session signaling passes through.

An end-to-end Session Identifier should allow the possibility to identify the communication session from the point of origin, passing through any number of intermediaries, to the ultimate point of termination. It should have the same aim as the From-tag, To-tag and Call-ID conjunction, but should not be mangled by intermediaries.  Consideration must be given to the fact that the entities involved in a communication session might change as a result of service interaction in the network, such as call transfers, joins, etc.

A SIP end-to-end Session Identifier has been considered as possible solution of different use cases like troubleshooting, billing, session tracking, session recording, media and signaling correlation, and so forth.  Some of these requirements have also been identified and come directly from other Existing working group within the RAI area (e.g. SIPRec, Splices).

Moreover, other standards organizations have identified the need for SIP and H.323 to carry the same "session ID" value(s) so that it is possible to identify a call end-to end even when performing interworking between protocols.

1. A requirement and use case document with key consideration for SIP Session End-to-End Identification, including the definition of a "session"

Goal and Milestone:

August 2012 - Requirement and use case document sent to the IESG (Informational)

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:57:31 -0500

+100   Please !!  This is very much needed work. 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Ravindran, Parthasarathi
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 8:35 AM
To: Paul E. Jones; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Revised Proposed Session-ID Charter

Paul,

Thanks

Partha

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 11:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dispatch] Revised Proposed Session-ID Charter

Folks,

Paul

 

Goal and Milestone:

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:32:54 +0100

Hi Paul,

I strongly support the work and I'm happy with the proposal as it stays.

Please let start with the work.

Best Regards

Roland

________________________________
Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von Paul E. Jones
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Dezember 2011 19:00
An: [email-masked]
Betreff: [dispatch] Revised Proposed Session-ID Charter

Folks,

Paul

Goal and Milestone:

---

From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:45:49 +0100

Paul,

We already had a consensus in Dispatch that this work is needed and
that there are enough people willing to contribute. There were
objections to the initial charter but, as you already pointed out, the
current charter text seems to have reached general acceptance. I
suggest you ask Gonzalo how to proceed to start the WG.

Laura

2011/12/19 Paul E. Jones <[email-masked]>:
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I’ve not seen much discussion on this topic over the past month.  Even so,
> I’ve not seen any objection to proceeding work.  The only concern raised
> recently is around the definition of the word “session”, to which we’re
> PS – The charter text that seems to have reached general acceptance is below
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>