Subject: [Simple] draft minutes for SIMPLE at IETF72

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:43:25 +0100

Please review and provide any corrections and comments as soon as you  
can.

Thanks!

RjS

=======================
Minutes - SIMPLE - IETF72

Summary:

The interdomain-federation draft is ready for WGLC, which will likely  
occur in
late August or September.

The view-sharing draft is getting close to ready and needs detailed  
review. The
chairs will be recruiting reviewers.

There was quite a bit of discussion around supporting a comedia  
connection
establishment model for MSRP and how it impacts the use of MSRP  
relays.  There
is strong interest in taking on supporting comedia connections as a WG  
effort.
There is not yet consensus to adopt a particular document as a  
starting point.
Additional list discussion (including further discussion of the opaque  
path
proposal) is expected.

The MSRP discussions overran the agenda time for group presence.  
Please review
Henning's presentation and provide comments to the list.

Raw Notes follow:

----------------------------------------------------
Notes on SIMPLE at IETF 72
reported by Dean Willis

Chaired by Robert Sparks and Hisham Khartabil

Note Well presented
Agenda accepted as presented

Chairs present status and administrivia updates.

Topic: Interdomain Federation
led by Jonathan Rosenberg
slides presented

Changes since last version reviewed.

Result: Plan on WGLC late August or September. Please review before
then.

Topic: View Sharing
led by Jonathan Rosenberg
slides presented

Pre-WGLC reviewers asked to volunteer.

Topic: Alternative COnnection Model for MSRP
led by Christer Holmberg
slides presented

Noted that correct draft here is draft-blau-simple-msrp-acm-00

Noted that this draft is not an alternate solution, but if adopted it
replaces draft-denis-simple-msrp-comedia.

Issue: C and M line usage

Noted that WG went over this many times and decided they could not use
C and M lines due to relays. So this usage is contradictory with use
of MSRP relay; so if a relay is used (for the many things relays might
be used for) this approach will preclude use of relays.

Question: Is it time to deprecate MSRP relays? Noted that at least one
developer has received RFP requests for relays within the last year.

Question: Is there any real reason to not have two ways to relay MSRP?

Question: B2BUAs have the fundamental flaw of modifying messages
without consent of endpoints. Is it reasonable to make this our only
architecture?

Question: Is it possible to use comedia without using the c and m
lines? If it is, then we could easily use both relay approaches.

Noted by another vendor that all current requests are for B2BUA or
comedia relays, and not MSRP relays.

Noted that in the SIP world, many users are busily removing B2BUAs for
scaling. Should we be putting b2BUAs into MSRP? Response that MSRP
relays have exactly the same scaling issue, and we'd be better off
figuring out how to crosss NATs at the transport layer.

Noted by chairs: We haven't seen much uptake on relays, but this
doesn't seem to be a fault of the protocol. It would not seem
reasonable to deprecate the MSRP relay function at this time.

Noted that the model proposed in this draft requires a relay-model
decision at call setup time. This may result in non-interoperable
clients. This might require negotiation of comedia based on
pre-knowledge of relay behavior.

Question: What has changed since the arguments that led us to develop
MSRP relays? JDR thinks that the initial model of shared TCP
connections between relays/carriers/enterprises has not developed, so
people care less about it. We should not be afraid to learn from
industry experience.

Noted that we really don't have very much deployment experience with
this protocol.

Noted that the need for relays has diminished with the increased TCP
capacity of modern OS.

Noted that MSRP relays may make pushback on congestion more difficult
than TCP.

Suggested that perhaps we should have just used SIP to set up an XMPP
session.

Issue: detailed ICE text. Proposed that document not discuss in detail

Poll: Should WG take on effort of negotiating comedia?
Strong response yes.

Poll: Is this draft a good starting point for the discussion? Response
mixed.

Topic: Opaque Path
led by Hadriel Kaplan
slides presented

Issue: MSRP Relay Scaling

Noted that the MSRP relay has other functions that may be hard with a
comedia relay. Suggested that these might be doable on a
non-transparent signaled relay.

Issue: Proposed Solution

Noted that connection sharing may not be important to nodes using the
proposed solutions.

Privacy was discussed, with the potential impacts on anonymity noted.

Noted that we may not be able to support all the uses of MSRP relays.

Poll: Who read this draft? (few). Who understands? (fewer).

Question: This means we don't need a relay and it won't work with
one. Anonymization requires a B2BUA and a TURN server (and the turn
server alone could have provided anon with current arch). One argument
for this approach is more efficient processing of messages. Is that
enough to justify adding an SBC for anonymization?

Conclusion: We do have group interest in comedia and will further
discuss on the list.

Noteed that last presentation was dropped from the agenda.

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple