From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sat Sep 7 10:49:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA8511E816E; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 10:49:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.56 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VwUdUruijX49; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 10:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2AE21F9AC1; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 10:49:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.70.p1 Message-ID: <20130907174921.9433.91935.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 10:49:21 -0700 Cc: straw@ietf.org Subject: [straw] I-D Action: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02.txt X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 17:49:47 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Sip Traversal Required for Applications t= o Work Working Group of the IETF. Title : Loop Detection Mechanisms for Session Initiation Protoco= l (SIP) Back-to- Back User Agents (B2BUAs) Author(s) : Hadriel Kaplan Victor Pascual Filename : draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2013-09-07 Abstract: SIP Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUAs) can cause unending SIP request routing loops because, as User Agent Clients, they can generate SIP requests with new Max-Forwards values. This document discusses the difficulties associated with loop detection for B2BUAs, and requirements for them to prevent infinite loops. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Mon Sep 9 04:13:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D1421E815D for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 04:13:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bXil6Bl3eN-O for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 04:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5DD221E80F5 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 04:13:29 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f9a8e000005620-49-522dad56c890 Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E6.A3.22048.65DAD225; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:13:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.146]) by ESESSHC015.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.63]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:13:26 +0200 From: Christer Holmberg To: "straw@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: straw-sip-traceroute: 205? Thread-Index: Ac6tTN/VV4u2Rsq3RIWYqrVZy3CRiA== Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:13:25 +0000 Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.19] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4ESESSMB209erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW7YWt0ggwkfRS1uNT9mdWD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxtGVO1gL7lhUvP64ibWB8aVBFyMnh4SAicTpna0sELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAQOM0pM//GYGcJZzCixa+JFpi5GDg42AQuJ7n/aIA0iAqoSE77cZASxhQWUJT7c 3soKEdeQWL14OTOErSex+O1OdhCbRUBFYufuN2D1vAK+Erc3bwarYQRa/P3UGiYQm1lAXOLW k/lMEAcJSCzZc54ZwhaVePn4HyuErSjR/rSBEaI+X+L+pO9sEDMFJU7OfMIygVFoFpJRs5CU zUJSBhHXkViw+xMbhK0tsWzha2YY+8yBx0zI4gsY2VcxsucmZuakl5tvYgSG/cEtvw12MG66 L3aIUZqDRUmcd7PemUAhgfTEktTs1NSC1KL4otKc1OJDjEwcnFINjCc+Jh5anWw+6frZOaqH vpsq6gc+vCBdyNr0/UHFEvYv9mvkP9yedfmI4+fHqyqMDcXaA83/zWO/fcli4abj1wwuOq3j 372b1+l4Nvvkm1KxF9PfVZ3L2C9R48uzXuyO0mml6L2W5uvms+uf/2h99+yK0/VlG+cc2vXM 8UhmaGfemYU1jotYj8xQYinOSDTUYi4qTgQAdcmc6EkCAAA= Subject: [straw] straw-sip-traceroute: 205? X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:13:45 -0000 --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4ESESSMB209erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (As co-chair) Hi, Hadriel has submitted the following draft in DISPATCH: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kaplan-dispatch-sip-205-response-00.txt The draft defines a new SIP response code, 205, and Hadriel has also sugges= ted the response code to be used in the STRAW trace-route delivery: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-00 The 205 draft has not been adopted yet, but the chairs would still like to = ask the STRAW community whether it thinks that we can make a working assump= tion decision that we will use the 205 mechanism (assuming it gets done) in= the trace-route delivery, or whether we should use some other mechanism. If we choose 205, the trace-route draft will obviously have a dependency on= the 205 draft, and we'll have to wait for it to get done. And, as we don't know whether 205 will ever become an RFC, or how it will e= ventually look like, we can always re-visit any decision we make. So, the question to the community is: Do you think that: a) We shall base the trace-route delivery on using the SIP 205 respons= e. b) We shall base the trace-route delivery on another mechanism - AND I= am also elaborating on how such mechanism would look like. c) I have read all the relevant drafts, and the e-mail discussions, bu= t I still think it is too early to make a working assumption, even if it la= ter can be re-visited, at this point - AND I am also elaborating on why I t= hink so. Regards, Christer & Victor (STRAW Chairs) --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4ESESSMB209erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

(As co-chair)

 

Hi,

 

Hadriel has submitted the following draft in DISP= ATCH:

 

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kaplan-dis= patch-sip-205-response-00.txt

 

The draft defines a new SIP response code, 205, a= nd Hadriel has also suggested the response code to be used in the STRAW tra= ce-route delivery:

 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-straw-sip-tr= aceroute-00

 

 

The 205 draft has not been adopted yet, but the c= hairs would still like to ask the STRAW community whether it thinks that we= can make a working assumption decision that we will use the 205 mechanism = (assuming it gets done) in the trace-route delivery, or whether we should use some other mechanism.

 

If we choose 205, the trace-route draft will obvi= ously have a dependency on the 205 draft, and we’ll have to wait for = it to get done.

 

And, as we don’t know whether 205 will ever= become an RFC, or how it will eventually look like, we can always re-visit= any decision we make.

 

So, the question to the community is:<= /p>

 

Do you think that:

a)      We shall base th= e trace-route delivery on using the SIP 205 response.

b)      We shall base th= e trace-route delivery on another mechanism - AND I am also elaborating on = how such mechanism would look like.

c)      I have read all = the relevant drafts, and the e-mail discussions, but I still think it is to= o early to make a working assumption, even if it later can be re-visited, a= t this point - AND I am also elaborating on why I think so.

 

Regards,

 

Christer & Victor

 

(STRAW Chairs)

 

 

--_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4ESESSMB209erics_-- From victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com Tue Sep 10 01:37:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4B421E81AC for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:37:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PgKJfZ9T4EYK for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com (mail-la0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2031721E81B7 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id er20so5844315lab.35 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:37:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=BapVJ33bYIJ7dpB0sj3qbxWNyFyw+tGwQxMLXdC9ems=; b=HoxqrrnNq7BDJS+NBPW/Os9KtFJoX15uED9rXxequSVd/htyX/zzVXprqemNZioU6P je9P+OLnR7gSHHqYM+Gb9PJreg2wq1psI3lTWv67WDmhGoISyi4vEtbWqn3cjT/TLMKZ RcOl2TfHMJXC4+YaYy2h2jwctJtzCNmy8Zs8yb3wzUyzCTHS0bPeQmhShSyCeOFqgcPX C4Zv10q9ncwJSX1DTrqH/R6PkjdU7WRCmnKabMEn1QhdrD6dlPZAhbTiE0d5XXKfjIsI PBoXLD8fvgchj+JVTQzU6vGr7Fs8mv9XzwpVN9nSWRhMnMdAjfIc6j4HgQEzdRkSED37 lmgw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.156.166 with SMTP id wf6mr19912990lbb.13.1378802253016; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.68.135 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:37:32 +0200 Message-ID: From: Victor Pascual Avila To: "straw@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [straw] WGLC: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:37:38 -0000 [As co-chair] Hi, We would like to start a working group last call of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 Please send comments by the end of the day on Sept 27 2013. Everyone is encouraged to read the document and provide comments. Brett did an excellent review. However, the chairs would also like to ask for at least a couple of additional volunteers, who commit to thoughtfully reading the document. Please contact the chairs if you can help with that. Best regards, Christer&Victor From brett@broadsoft.com Tue Sep 10 06:12:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C8C11E81AD for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 06:12:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HwCssgV5F-Z4 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 06:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpout01.partnerhosted.com (smtpout01.partnerhosted.com [173.225.22.203]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D20BA21F997B for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 06:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CASUMHUB03.citservers.local (172.16.98.219) by smtpedge.partnerhosted.com (172.16.98.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 06:13:09 -0700 Received: from MBX08.citservers.local ([fe80::2564:652:8dc8:caae]) by CASUMHUB03.citservers.local ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 06:13:04 -0700 From: Brett Tate To: Christer Holmberg , "straw@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: straw-sip-traceroute: 205? Thread-Index: Ac6tTN/VV4u2Rsq3RIWYqrVZy3CRiAANal8A Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:13:03 +0000 Message-ID: <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E4CF@MBX08.citservers.local> References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.16.98.77] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [straw] straw-sip-traceroute: 205? X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:12:37 -0000 > Do you think that: > a)=A0We shall base the trace-route delivery on using=20 > the SIP 205 response. > b)=A0We shall base the trace-route delivery on another=20 > mechanism - AND I am also elaborating on how such=20 > mechanism would look like. > c)=A0I have read all the relevant drafts, and the e-mail=20 > discussions, but I still think it is too early to make a > working assumption, even if it later can be re-visited, at > this point - AND I am also elaborating on why I think so. Based upon the choices, I think c). This is because the 205 solution relie= s upon a second part of the solution which would basically need to be adequ= ate enough to work without requiring the 205. For instance if the second p= art is the Reason header, I don't see a reason why it would work within a 2= 05 response but not a 200 response. Thus I think that the second part of t= he solution is the real solution although the 205 provides a little extra i= nformation (similar to History-Info). NOTE: The 205 response is generic enough to allow the otherwise final locat= ion to return a 205 response when not the "intended target". However with that said, I don't have a strong opinion about draft-ietf-stra= w-sip-traceroute actually using or not using the 205. =20 Thanks, Brett From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Tue Sep 10 10:57:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1535621E817A for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:57:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.706 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.543, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ygCyS3uAg7Vt for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8D121F9FF3 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:56:58 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f9a8e000005620-df-522f5d66f884 Received: from ESESSHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B4.E5.22048.66D5F225; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 19:56:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.146]) by ESESSHC008.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.42]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 19:56:54 +0200 From: Christer Holmberg To: 'Brett Tate' , "straw@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: straw-sip-traceroute: 205? Thread-Index: Ac6tTN/VV4u2Rsq3RIWYqrVZy3CRiAANal8AADMaxsA= Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:56:54 +0000 Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49EB7B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E4CF@MBX08.citservers.local> In-Reply-To: <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E4CF@MBX08.citservers.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.18] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW5arH6QwaQGC4vm+f8YLW41P2Z1 YPL4cTvQY8mSn0wBTFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGbNnH2Qp+MJbcXXmQuYGxjbuLkZODgkBE4n+ CQ+YIGwxiQv31rN1MXJxCAkcZpT4vfI0M4SzhFHi5e9d7F2MHBxsAhYS3f+0QRpEBDwlOp43 soDYwgLqEhs+fWeBiGtIrF68nBnCtpI4tuIUI4jNIqAq8bFvM5jNK+Ar8au5gx1i/kRGiYvz 34AlOAX8JPo3tIHZjEAXfT+1Buw6ZgFxiVtP5kNdKiCxZM95ZghbVOLl43+sELaixMdX+xgh 6vUkbkydwgZha0ssW/iaGWKxoMTJmU9YJjCKzkIydhaSlllIWmYhaVnAyLKKkT03MTMnvdx8 EyMwFg5u+W2wg3HTfbFDjNIcLErivJv1zgQKCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYLRO b75y8JHr+YuRSW/7ktLP2z0482/DjJ+S90XNHRZ9YS2wXXD70cfev9qqotOyXO/9Wzf7fuKt GEHhxE2zbVamNx7+7SnlNf+mq0dSvkP5hQOnosJOB+3/baRy6l5VsxzzXb4mvocPt2Vsmyd0 eV3W3I9ftrJb7H9sw/Iq8fb6Bwd890uEpf5RYinOSDTUYi4qTgQAabRrv1MCAAA= Subject: Re: [straw] straw-sip-traceroute: 205? X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:57:06 -0000 (As co-chair) Hi Brett, Thanks for your input! In order to try to "narrow down" the options, would it be fair to say that = you see a way forward on using EITHER 200 or 205, depending on how the "sec= ond part" will look like? Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Brett Tate [mailto:brett@broadsoft.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:13 PM To: Christer Holmberg; straw@ietf.org Subject: RE: straw-sip-traceroute: 205? > Do you think that: > a)=A0We shall base the trace-route delivery on using the SIP 205=20 > response. > b)=A0We shall base the trace-route delivery on another mechanism - AND I= =20 > am also elaborating on how such mechanism would look like. > c)=A0I have read all the relevant drafts, and the e-mail discussions,=20 > but I still think it is too early to make a working assumption, even=20 > if it later can be re-visited, at this point - AND I am also=20 > elaborating on why I think so. Based upon the choices, I think c). This is because the 205 solution relie= s upon a second part of the solution which would basically need to be adequ= ate enough to work without requiring the 205. For instance if the second p= art is the Reason header, I don't see a reason why it would work within a 2= 05 response but not a 200 response. Thus I think that the second part of t= he solution is the real solution although the 205 provides a little extra i= nformation (similar to History-Info). NOTE: The 205 response is generic enough to allow the otherwise final locat= ion to return a 205 response when not the "intended target". However with that said, I don't have a strong opinion about draft-ietf-stra= w-sip-traceroute actually using or not using the 205. =20 Thanks, Brett From brett@broadsoft.com Tue Sep 10 11:06:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09FE21E817A for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:06:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dWr8gkQ-wmho for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpout01.partnerhosted.com (smtpout01.partnerhosted.com [173.225.22.203]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C2521F933B for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CASUMHUB03.citservers.local (172.16.98.219) by smtpedge.partnerhosted.com (172.16.98.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:06:43 -0700 Received: from MBX08.citservers.local ([fe80::2564:652:8dc8:caae]) by CASUMHUB03.citservers.local ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:06:41 -0700 From: Brett Tate To: Christer Holmberg , "straw@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: straw-sip-traceroute: 205? Thread-Index: Ac6tTN/VV4u2Rsq3RIWYqrVZy3CRiAANal8AADMaxsAAAC3YEA== Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:06:40 +0000 Message-ID: <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E64D@MBX08.citservers.local> References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E4CF@MBX08.citservers.local> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49EB7B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49EB7B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.16.98.77] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [straw] straw-sip-traceroute: 205? X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:06:15 -0000 > In order to try to "narrow down" the options, would it=20 > be fair to say that you see a way forward on using=20 > EITHER 200 or 205, depending on how the "second part"=20 > will look like? Yes. > -----Original Message----- > From: Brett Tate [mailto:brett@broadsoft.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:13 PM > To: Christer Holmberg; straw@ietf.org > Subject: RE: straw-sip-traceroute: 205? >=20 > > Do you think that: > > a)=A0We shall base the trace-route delivery on using the SIP 205 > > response. > > b)=A0We shall base the trace-route delivery on another mechanism - AND > I > > am also elaborating on how such mechanism would look like. > > c)=A0I have read all the relevant drafts, and the e-mail discussions, > > but I still think it is too early to make a working assumption, even > > if it later can be re-visited, at this point - AND I am also > > elaborating on why I think so. >=20 > Based upon the choices, I think c). This is because the 205 solution > relies upon a second part of the solution which would basically need to > be adequate enough to work without requiring the 205. For instance if > the second part is the Reason header, I don't see a reason why it would > work within a 205 response but not a 200 response. Thus I think that > the second part of the solution is the real solution although the 205 > provides a little extra information (similar to History-Info). >=20 > NOTE: The 205 response is generic enough to allow the otherwise final > location to return a 205 response when not the "intended target". >=20 > However with that said, I don't have a strong opinion about draft-ietf- > straw-sip-traceroute actually using or not using the 205. >=20 > Thanks, > Brett From victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com Wed Sep 11 08:48:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9922911E81C8 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:48:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WXhkQNoEUl4N for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22b.google.com (mail-lb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F403D21E8139 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id u14so7659616lbd.16 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:48:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=qBRqUP1KsR3OMImdGd7DVk3uSObEZCsihSAAHPI7zn0=; b=DWGqEqzsFUn5JYjER1lYu+pZkVc8HJBrQ42/HhuXMPwRbD+kbfJp7UneS8fT50RWjA 1J/1KTLNqzfkClzFMab/N4i3uyhqiFbd1QIDy+5uOU4AiLgH4mTTMPmYko2iMsyBvI3p 4R698xzKKxrIQllwKEjQ6ptzzy+lBUCjcMMf5sNRN3ByqhKKnV5pKTB7DL9m5BjfDI1v ChHmyxMkHuAV6Xn41u95csCmxsAVB8pqzRnkjmnotjqA+5nPZETz0uqrm5vI3JOcNrxi brVj1JKp5o3uujSrxDWqtF46yWEzdyxzOQTR4Mk9R5QoLFSeQroh/cYIRUjv05r9j29m McZw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.8.115 with SMTP id q19mr1873461laa.16.1378914507712; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.68.135 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:48:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E64D@MBX08.citservers.local> References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E4CF@MBX08.citservers.local> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49EB7B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E64D@MBX08.citservers.local> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:48:27 +0200 Message-ID: From: Victor Pascual Avila To: "straw@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [straw] straw-sip-traceroute: 205? X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:48:31 -0000 Thanks Brett! Does anyone else have an opinion on this? -Victor On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Brett Tate wrote: >> In order to try to "narrow down" the options, would it >> be fair to say that you see a way forward on using >> EITHER 200 or 205, depending on how the "second part" >> will look like? > > Yes. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brett Tate [mailto:brett@broadsoft.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:13 PM >> To: Christer Holmberg; straw@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: straw-sip-traceroute: 205? >> >> > Do you think that: >> > a) We shall base the trace-route delivery on using the SIP 205 >> > response. >> > b) We shall base the trace-route delivery on another mechanism - AND >> I >> > am also elaborating on how such mechanism would look like. >> > c) I have read all the relevant drafts, and the e-mail discussions, >> > but I still think it is too early to make a working assumption, even >> > if it later can be re-visited, at this point - AND I am also >> > elaborating on why I think so. >> >> Based upon the choices, I think c). This is because the 205 solution >> relies upon a second part of the solution which would basically need to >> be adequate enough to work without requiring the 205. For instance if >> the second part is the Reason header, I don't see a reason why it would >> work within a 205 response but not a 200 response. Thus I think that >> the second part of the solution is the real solution although the 205 >> provides a little extra information (similar to History-Info). >> >> NOTE: The 205 response is generic enough to allow the otherwise final >> location to return a 205 response when not the "intended target". >> >> However with that said, I don't have a strong opinion about draft-ietf- >> straw-sip-traceroute actually using or not using the 205. >> >> Thanks, >> Brett From pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu Wed Sep 11 09:49:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C97A21E80EE for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:49:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.266 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xuA+ijyZpetp for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C6021E8153 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id PnGY1m0041wpRvQ57sp3Gw; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:49:03 +0000 Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Psp21m0113ZTu2S3esp3mw; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:49:03 +0000 Message-ID: <52309EFD.9060301@alum.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:49:01 -0400 From: Paul Kyzivat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: straw@ietf.org References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E4CF@MBX08.citservers.local> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49EB7B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E64D@MBX08.citservers.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1378918143; bh=NQVF+iTIkfzBquVbJ8rYrX9n3yj8z2t7CwA3h3wAbBg=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=VDC7jLSgfFrJOJm4QCY7Iy4t6sriGUXM6mri6+e4cS7P7Pb996bacTzO/ZFVGGsc+ USMdIWaNGdqvYcZT4qzV7/A12CsPGps/X7bjXf3MhVALCv4XEdbCcv1fqyj0zbY87w pV+i99xN70PtIDkcekI5Q6brUrtquPAivSPUwmQ65vkKvIXGjvTjxdSrfVi1dFgTe7 8s8c4Ta+FNCREN/aL9wfAApf3FOfKr/FM+BX0NOvu16FigcFTVNS1+SliRxd/iceEz +OkCsUfrLkZn1tH5Du6FuLqBjqGUvnRPRqED2cXj57ZPYNEo39fzouGT2stF/eel9C 8zHntyG6Ngn6A== Subject: Re: [straw] straw-sip-traceroute: 205? X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:49:11 -0000 On 9/11/13 11:48 AM, Victor Pascual Avila wrote: > Thanks Brett! > > Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Was I the proposer of this? I think so. It seemed like a good idea initially. But as we talk about it, coming up with good criteria for choosing 205 rather than 200 seems quite hard. I am satisfied with using Reason with 200 for the purpose at hand. Thanks, Paul > -Victor > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Brett Tate wrote: >>> In order to try to "narrow down" the options, would it >>> be fair to say that you see a way forward on using >>> EITHER 200 or 205, depending on how the "second part" >>> will look like? >> >> Yes. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Brett Tate [mailto:brett@broadsoft.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:13 PM >>> To: Christer Holmberg; straw@ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: straw-sip-traceroute: 205? >>> >>>> Do you think that: >>>> a) We shall base the trace-route delivery on using the SIP 205 >>>> response. >>>> b) We shall base the trace-route delivery on another mechanism - AND >>> I >>>> am also elaborating on how such mechanism would look like. >>>> c) I have read all the relevant drafts, and the e-mail discussions, >>>> but I still think it is too early to make a working assumption, even >>>> if it later can be re-visited, at this point - AND I am also >>>> elaborating on why I think so. >>> >>> Based upon the choices, I think c). This is because the 205 solution >>> relies upon a second part of the solution which would basically need to >>> be adequate enough to work without requiring the 205. For instance if >>> the second part is the Reason header, I don't see a reason why it would >>> work within a 205 response but not a 200 response. Thus I think that >>> the second part of the solution is the real solution although the 205 >>> provides a little extra information (similar to History-Info). >>> >>> NOTE: The 205 response is generic enough to allow the otherwise final >>> location to return a 205 response when not the "intended target". >>> >>> However with that said, I don't have a strong opinion about draft-ietf- >>> straw-sip-traceroute actually using or not using the 205. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Brett > _______________________________________________ > straw mailing list > straw@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw > From victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com Sun Sep 15 02:16:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1096711E8101 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:16:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s+sviANksBbF for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E5211E80FA for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:15:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id z5so3275457lbh.14 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:15:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=owOUZLh0kKIdOl0Bj4p+7CoFePFYBm6dvMCfaHtPbAE=; b=ZW72zuqUpGu10uz+eit9E1YOolW3Ng0Ashs02Exd4Dnv6SfbH8Nsebtkfhp6M2DjR0 dcVLvWXiONpilweuMKcXctxwefH/7O5raMBKP1cIKYTYRJ0pXlAqWj1H2pwpjmgb9zVg 9YilO/0hblDo7PlK3yrl2NS0jK6xVoto/eqKfSodRbIrBK+py8xPXfeBlYsrznNxD++F AfRxmfFPWe3SBeHqTJnkFkW+av4NksGAalKMUjCk/C6vFUqsxsh5oYrHS0V7T7xVTMjL 444JpuGjs1rvdaFdeAdze01Gpkvg6k0YkQ/+PxOb7XrS0dB2cVlw/ZHJbD5/a3VvT7KF xHfA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.120.73 with SMTP id la9mr19304199lab.3.1379236557758; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.68.135 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:15:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:15:57 +0200 Message-ID: From: Victor Pascual Avila To: "straw@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 09:16:00 -0000 Reminder: please send your comments by the end of the day on Sept 27 2013 On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Victor Pascual Avila wrote: > [As co-chair] > > Hi, > > We would like to start a working group last call of > draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 > > Please send comments by the end of the day on Sept 27 2013. Everyone > is encouraged to read the document and provide comments. > > Brett did an excellent review. However, the chairs would also like to > ask for at least a couple of additional volunteers, who commit to > thoughtfully reading the document. Please contact the chairs if you > can help with that. > > Best regards, > > Christer&Victor From victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com Sun Sep 15 02:21:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE1A21F9C7A for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:21:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5YllkuyNDu9e for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:21:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A2521F9DAD for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id ev20so2177879lab.25 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:21:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=70sR/v3hm/HmTT62t70NsaC6VDoKRVzq7FB92RS8CdE=; b=mNE9eq5yOh0BYcJcjUeNGfeBvxYcF4KNewqDgbUBI3vtZjIs4IiKGXvi4P9E9q/BAH 7ju0I8ZifPnBzeEeGfMRWWKlnqm75IFt20zDTyfAJ+wUIVu2pOyR1jjXNlxrZ5PS1dnY 60ySOg9AWvXHQZCdr+BiXwiXmagBGFNPE5y+wJehKX5TPVcYgNM2OeHDsf3b2ihrNvR9 7TMfP0y2UbtMZD2Owlz61iVC7It68zQ0XZy6jJmxhgB6O/qENiAFinsmI+EhSeRRLxG0 x5EPGIiNEcjWXLy0xG/9BVetW+BaPP0GnDlvXzZI5YWNjHwE/mYPbWU2M19lvOMhkpIq bWuQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.29.201 with SMTP id m9mr19709536lah.6.1379236860404; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.68.135 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:21:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <52309EFD.9060301@alum.mit.edu> References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E4CF@MBX08.citservers.local> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49EB7B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E64D@MBX08.citservers.local> <52309EFD.9060301@alum.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:21:00 +0200 Message-ID: From: Victor Pascual Avila To: "straw@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [straw] straw-sip-traceroute: 205? X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 09:21:03 -0000 On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > It seemed like a good idea initially. But as we talk about it, coming up > with good criteria for choosing 205 rather than 200 seems quite hard. > > I am satisfied with using Reason with 200 for the purpose at hand. I agree -Victor (as individual) >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Brett Tate wrote: >>>> >>>> In order to try to "narrow down" the options, would it >>>> be fair to say that you see a way forward on using >>>> EITHER 200 or 205, depending on how the "second part" >>>> will look like? >>> >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Brett Tate [mailto:brett@broadsoft.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:13 PM >>>> To: Christer Holmberg; straw@ietf.org >>>> Subject: RE: straw-sip-traceroute: 205? >>>> >>>>> Do you think that: >>>>> a) We shall base the trace-route delivery on using the SIP 205 >>>>> response. >>>>> b) We shall base the trace-route delivery on another mechanism - AND >>>> >>>> I >>>>> >>>>> am also elaborating on how such mechanism would look like. >>>>> c) I have read all the relevant drafts, and the e-mail discussions, >>>>> but I still think it is too early to make a working assumption, even >>>>> if it later can be re-visited, at this point - AND I am also >>>>> elaborating on why I think so. >>>> >>>> >>>> Based upon the choices, I think c). This is because the 205 solution >>>> relies upon a second part of the solution which would basically need to >>>> be adequate enough to work without requiring the 205. For instance if >>>> the second part is the Reason header, I don't see a reason why it would >>>> work within a 205 response but not a 200 response. Thus I think that >>>> the second part of the solution is the real solution although the 205 >>>> provides a little extra information (similar to History-Info). >>>> >>>> NOTE: The 205 response is generic enough to allow the otherwise final >>>> location to return a 205 response when not the "intended target". >>>> >>>> However with that said, I don't have a strong opinion about draft-ietf- >>>> straw-sip-traceroute actually using or not using the 205. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Brett From victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com Sun Sep 15 07:40:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697D611E8107 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:40:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rkar9bWr6iGa for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x232.google.com (mail-la0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB08421F9FD5 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id lv10so2336041lab.23 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:40:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=DuSLK3a48iKfYEzWhasGW0FNTlgfX4dm4fJd0KJ1pJw=; b=bm8mqVO+Sfwh7dzrKmJPoqM3obXqMMiXUp/4UyChOhqUObtiWXx0y77A9cn9b37g3p q8D0tlk3F2PyC+d3RAd0PMqXfiO6qQ68ebPnokmicSj8nSPFvLGaD52MMxTNbdbjmu2b Dpq6qS1zil3fYpFB72fDBwIHm+ei6abli1Kyvw4hSi8qwn8vStiiq+ilv7tZQJzXYs7K ZIzLWJdpyIo2C1icp6KFr/XCx2YbMatK8LL/QaWTjqYXYQMWAObjKrHEzajhsEGJTp14 RaGKaDiyLc7JopUmsChPW7p67AA7gyNAT90XfY8EPdoPZIlYYdz1nCLLAEycN7uety53 CgJw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.45.106 with SMTP id l10mr20894977lam.12.1379256012757; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.68.135 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 16:40:12 +0200 Message-ID: From: Victor Pascual Avila To: "straw@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [straw] WG status and Vancouver X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 14:40:15 -0000 Dear WG, quick update on where we are: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy -- the authors are currently addressing comments from IESG draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection -- WGLC in progress draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute -- 200/205 discussion (based on the feedback received so far, it seems people would be ok with 200) The chairs believe the work can progress without having a f2f meeting in Vancouver, so are NOT planning to request agenda time for the meeting. Please let the chairs know if you have any issues with that. At the moment, there are no drafts addressing the following deliverables: - A document defining the requirements for B2BUAs to support DTLS-SRTP (RFC 5764) end-to-end - A document defining the requirements for B2BUAs to support STUN message transactions end-to-end - A document defining the requirements for B2BUAs to support RTCP end-to-end We encourage people to take a look and express whether they are interested in contributing to any of those deliverables. Regards, Christer & Victor From hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com Mon Sep 16 09:08:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC3B11E82C3 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:08:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cyzwNleU7JwC for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811CC11E82EB for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:04:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r8GG4aXx018606 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:04:37 GMT Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8GG4Ztl024654 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:04:36 GMT Received: from abhmt114.oracle.com (abhmt114.oracle.com [141.146.116.66]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8GG4Z2E002858; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:04:35 GMT Received: from [10.1.21.34] (/10.5.21.34) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:04:34 -0700 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CBCB268C-78EF-4F4B-8E3D-35E403967608" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Hadriel Kaplan In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:04:33 -0400 Message-Id: <347FD7AE-6B8C-469E-9EFB-044790012BB1@oracle.com> References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> To: Christer Holmberg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] Cc: "straw@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [straw] straw-sip-traceroute: 205? X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:08:35 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CBCB268C-78EF-4F4B-8E3D-35E403967608 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 The 205 response code by itself won't be enough - it's too likely to get = mapped to a 200 before reaching the UAC. The Reason header might be = enough by itself. The rationale for doing the 205 was discussed in the = original thread back in July. See here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00147.html -hadriel On Sep 9, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Christer Holmberg = wrote: > (As co-chair) > =20 > Hi, > =20 > Hadriel has submitted the following draft in DISPATCH: > =20 > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kaplan-dispatch-sip-205-response-00.txt > =20 > The draft defines a new SIP response code, 205, and Hadriel has also = suggested the response code to be used in the STRAW trace-route = delivery: > =20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-00 > =20 > =20 > The 205 draft has not been adopted yet, but the chairs would still = like to ask the STRAW community whether it thinks that we can make a = working assumption decision that we will use the 205 mechanism (assuming = it gets done) in the trace-route delivery, or whether we should use some = other mechanism. > =20 > If we choose 205, the trace-route draft will obviously have a = dependency on the 205 draft, and we=92ll have to wait for it to get = done. > =20 > And, as we don=92t know whether 205 will ever become an RFC, or how it = will eventually look like, we can always re-visit any decision we make. > =20 > So, the question to the community is: > =20 > Do you think that: > a) We shall base the trace-route delivery on using the SIP 205 = response. > b) We shall base the trace-route delivery on another mechanism - = AND I am also elaborating on how such mechanism would look like. > c) I have read all the relevant drafts, and the e-mail = discussions, but I still think it is too early to make a working = assumption, even if it later can be re-visited, at this point - AND I am = also elaborating on why I think so. > =20 > Regards, > =20 > Christer & Victor > =20 > (STRAW Chairs) > =20 > =20 > _______________________________________________ > straw mailing list > straw@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw --Apple-Mail=_CBCB268C-78EF-4F4B-8E3D-35E403967608 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252

The 205 = response code by itself won't be enough - it's too likely to get mapped = to a 200 before reaching the UAC.  The Reason header might be = enough by itself.  The rationale for doing the 205 was discussed in = the original thread back in July.   See here:
=

-hadriel


On Sep 9, = 2013, at 7:13 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.= com> wrote:

(As co-chair)
 
Hadriel has submitted the following draft in = DISPATCH:
List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:11:26 -0000 On Sep 11, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Paul Kyzivat = wrote: > It seemed like a good idea initially. But as we talk about it, coming = up with good criteria for choosing 205 rather than 200 seems quite hard. > I am satisfied with using Reason with 200 for the purpose at hand. I'm fine with that too. I do think sending a different 2xx for "you = didn't reach the target you asked for" would have been useful for more = than just traceroute, but it would take a very long time to get such a = thing adopted+deployed in the real world. -hadriel From victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com Wed Sep 18 01:30:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2A611E81E3 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 01:30:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NPqFFBR0GjJV for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 01:30:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22d.google.com (mail-lb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7648A11E81E0 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 01:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id o14so6278805lbi.4 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 01:30:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=tdMnTrN6h9fNz39SKlJPNuUWx1DbYDD+nWsXXYSHhPQ=; b=siH2dFlkaoKqiJ2Wy8M3Mxi02/6P4pSv/9EkhintL17Mqw3/K3IHxR6fwaff29cQKO ySl9V2rpDpNndiekWPArvWlmOlLeSz7r+139/sx2LFTW4YG8jZMUmCMGmF++xRRWuBKU TXSfx6dy/pIehwIgUETzviKlK5qrhsW26rBd+wkwNY5xZ4hlSeg03HCNv7tSBuoC+LpE JAkkrKTvKOH4mx2FNKDFTPGFvmQjfIAuTaULMo0OWUFxsWWW584QTBz/LjOt02l40uXB nHLBoSU7NGD87mZj52VLYg+28IUAAOlZwEwDCHM1yPnf6OvHXji93XnCTuxcZG+WetRB gqVg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.170.166 with SMTP id an6mr33773503lac.20.1379493041208; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 01:30:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.68.135 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 01:30:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E4CF@MBX08.citservers.local> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49EB7B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <576A8B541C219D4E9CEB1DF8C19C7B881A05E64D@MBX08.citservers.local> <52309EFD.9060301@alum.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:30:41 +0200 Message-ID: From: Victor Pascual Avila To: Hadriel Kaplan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "straw@ietf.org" , Paul Kyzivat Subject: Re: [straw] straw-sip-traceroute: 205? X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:30:47 -0000 On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > On Sep 11, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > >> It seemed like a good idea initially. But as we talk about it, coming up with good criteria for choosing 205 rather than 200 seems quite hard. >> I am satisfied with using Reason with 200 for the purpose at hand. > > I'm fine with that too. I do think sending a different 2xx for "you didn't reach the target you asked for" would have been useful for more than just traceroute, but it would take a very long time to get such a thing adopted+deployed in the real world. Then, I suggest we proceed accordingly. -Victor From andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com Thu Sep 19 02:25:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CFCF21F95D0 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 02:24:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F-zydYRpJseP for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 02:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51CE21F856A for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 02:24:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id F2BB51EB85D3 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:24:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.31]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:24:33 +0200 From: "Hutton, Andrew" To: "straw@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 Thread-Index: Ac61Ggt1QXAqSuiTQy2zm/49bhHdvw== Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:24:31 +0000 Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCC99C@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [straw] WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:25:02 -0000 I have a couple of comments. 1. Section 4 states " It is RECOMMENDED that B2BUAs implement the loop-dete= ction mechanism for the Via header field, as defined for a Proxy in [RFC539= 3]." This could be changed to a MUST requirement by changing it to "B2BUAs MUST = implement the updates to [RFC3261] for strengthening the requirements to pe= rform loop detection as specified in [RFC5393]". I prefer this because it = enforces the requirement that some form of loop-detection must be in place = when forking. =20 2. Section 5 states " B2BUAs MAY perform the same actions for in-dialog req= uests, but doing so may cause issues with devices that set Max-Forwards val= ues based upon the number of received Via or Record-Route headers" I think this could do with some more explanation regarding mid-dialog reque= sts and the issues associated with setting Max-Forwards based on Via or Rec= ord-Route. It would be good to remove this "MAY" and have clear requirement= s for handling mid-dialog requests. Do we really need to have the text abou= t setting based on the number of via or record-route headers? Regards Andy From andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com Thu Sep 19 03:00:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1442421F96B1 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:00:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r69cckEHy49G for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4FF221F8517 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 94E6B23F0596 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:00:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.31]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:00:24 +0200 From: "Hutton, Andrew" To: "straw@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: No taxonomy ref in draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-00 Thread-Index: Ac61Hw00Tu9wrJxHQNuOjXtmuas+iQ== Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:00:21 +0000 Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCCAE7@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCCAE7MCHP04MSXglobal_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [straw] No taxonomy ref in draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:00:45 -0000 --_000_9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCCAE7MCHP04MSXglobal_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I assume that draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-00 should reference draft-iet= f-straw-b2bua-taxonomy and state which types of B2BUA it applies to which I= assume would have to be media-aware of media-termination B2BUA's. Regards Andy --_000_9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCCAE7MCHP04MSXglobal_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I assume that draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-00 should reference draf= t-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy and state which types of B2BUA it applies to wh= ich I assume would have to be media-aware of media-termination B2BUA’= s.
 
Regards
Andy
 
 --_000_9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCCAE7MCHP04MSXglobal_-- From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Thu Sep 19 03:10:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5E021F99CC for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:10:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.967 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.967 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.369, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oLeZf2iZ7Fsg for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3C721F9302 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:10:22 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7fcf8e0000062b8-7c-523acd8669a1 Received: from ESESSHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B9.01.25272.68DCA325; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:10:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.146]) by ESESSHC007.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.39]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:10:14 +0200 From: Christer Holmberg To: "Hutton, Andrew" , "straw@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: No taxonomy ref in draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-00 Thread-Index: Ac61Hw00Tu9wrJxHQNuOjXtmuas+iQAAVJGg Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:10:13 +0000 Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A77F3@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCCAE7@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCCAE7@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A77F3ESESSMB209erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW77Wasgg9MPGC3O9nWxW9xqfszq wOSxZMlPJo8bt98zBzBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGU8erGOsWCRYcWaq9sYGxhv6HQxcnJICJhI HJ/5lhXCFpO4cG89G4gtJHCUUaJvRjiEvYRRoudwThcjBwebgIVE9z9tkLCIQILEytblYOXC Ak4SP9f0soCUiAg4S3z6rghRYiSxb9lSFhCbRUBVouXdUSYQm1fAV6J9+ixGiOl+Eo/vHQOL cwr4Szydc5gdxGYEuub7qTVgcWYBcYlbT+YzQVwpILFkz3lmCFtU4uXjf6wgayUEFCWW98uB mMwC+RKHe/UhNglKnJz5hGUCo8gsJINmIVTNQlIFUaIjsWD3JzYIW1ti2cLXzDD2mQOPmZDF FzCyr2LkKE4tTspNNzLYxAiMmINbflvsYLz81+YQozQHi5I47xa9M4FCAumJJanZqakFqUXx RaU5qcWHGJk4OKUaGBfnvJc5xujVaWgd/k/8Y7VPit7RL5qd6kcePxJc/qfv+18jhgV8eVs2 t/z0CHjpq3FV5eOPTUZH6+bOV9/87ITyuz0hv3Uljp/n4kpo+tC49gRjYOnpKV8n3ckraYit 2rv36uxtS2PirN+tjt6v8uz96s4XR4J7jglsj33Tv379RZYG/yPr3vxTYinOSDTUYi4qTgQA 7+CNp2YCAAA= Subject: Re: [straw] No taxonomy ref in draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:10:30 -0000 --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A77F3ESESSMB209erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (As individual) Hi Andy, I agree with you. Regards, Christer From: straw-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:straw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of H= utton, Andrew Sent: 19. syyskuuta 2013 13:00 To: straw@ietf.org Subject: [straw] No taxonomy ref in draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-00 I assume that draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-00 should reference draft-iet= f-straw-b2bua-taxonomy and state which types of B2BUA it applies to which I= assume would have to be media-aware of media-termination B2BUA's. Regards Andy --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A77F3ESESSMB209erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

(As individual)

 <= /p>

Hi Andy,

 <= /p>

I agree with you.

 <= /p>

Regards,

 <= /p>

Christer

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

From: straw-bo= unces@ietf.org [mailto:straw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hutton, Andrew
Sent: 19. syyskuuta 2013 13:00
To: straw@ietf.org
Subject: [straw] No taxonomy ref in draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-= 00

 

I assume that draft-ietf-straw-sip-trac= eroute-00 should reference draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy and state which = types of B2BUA it applies to which I assume would have to be media-aware of media-termination B2BUA’s.

 

Regards

Andy

 

--_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A77F3ESESSMB209erics_-- From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Thu Sep 19 03:11:48 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F4921F99CC for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:11:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.758 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.491, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rMv1duFWFREA for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E1AA21F99CD for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:11:42 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f738e000003ee3-f0-523acddd84e0 Received: from ESESSHC019.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 7B.64.16099.DDDCA325; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:11:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.146]) by ESESSHC019.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:11:42 +0200 From: Christer Holmberg To: "Hutton, Andrew" , "straw@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 Thread-Index: Ac61Ggt1QXAqSuiTQy2zm/49bhHdvwABmZfg Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:11:41 +0000 Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A7805@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCC99C@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCC99C@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrDLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje69s1ZBBu+3CFmc7etit7jV/JjV gcljyZKfTB43br9nDmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mp4MKWw4B5Pxe/1h1kaGDdzdTFycEgImEis fx3XxcgJZIpJXLi3nq2LkYtDSOAwo8SZ98egnCWMEpd3d7OANLAJWEh0/9MGaRARSJBY2bqc DcQWFnCT2HhsITtE3F1i3q2rzBC2kcSSqzfBbBYBVYm+mafBangFfCV+/XzDBjJSSMBPYl9z DUiYU8BfYtnl30wgNiPQPd9PrQGzmQXEJW49mc8EcaeAxJI955khbFGJl4//sUK8oiixvF8O olxHYsHuT2wQtrbEsoWvmSG2CkqcnPmEZQKj6CwkU2chaZmFpGUWkpYFjCyrGNlzEzNz0ssN NzECY+Dglt+6OxhPnRM5xCjNwaIkzrtJ70ygkEB6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmrxIUYmDk6pBkbV SyEpE+/Ne/DjruNbO1Nh3oS3OW6lr3O+sH4Myz39fx27yi5nXnv/aL+EuGwd8VVn3Oyv7RRR v96WWrAtdUOJ+IOt9hYS4ssZZ697ssn/I99Lbm8hthU39hs4F5oe2ZK7sLiykfuj4O7nPz8K X1eeP1Exc8Kjv73luQwy2Q5XrkclbLeZt0GJpTgj0VCLuag4EQBXZx7uTwIAAA== Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:11:48 -0000 (As co-chair) Hi Andy, Thank You Very Much for the review!=20 Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: straw-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:straw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of H= utton, Andrew Sent: 19. syyskuuta 2013 12:25 To: straw@ietf.org Subject: [straw] WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 I have a couple of comments. 1. Section 4 states " It is RECOMMENDED that B2BUAs implement the loop-dete= ction mechanism for the Via header field, as defined for a Proxy in [RFC539= 3]." This could be changed to a MUST requirement by changing it to "B2BUAs MUST = implement the updates to [RFC3261] for strengthening the requirements to pe= rform loop detection as specified in [RFC5393]". I prefer this because it = enforces the requirement that some form of loop-detection must be in place = when forking. =20 2. Section 5 states " B2BUAs MAY perform the same actions for in-dialog req= uests, but doing so may cause issues with devices that set Max-Forwards val= ues based upon the number of received Via or Record-Route headers" I think this could do with some more explanation regarding mid-dialog reque= sts and the issues associated with setting Max-Forwards based on Via or Rec= ord-Route. It would be good to remove this "MAY" and have clear requirement= s for handling mid-dialog requests. Do we really need to have the text abou= t setting based on the number of via or record-route headers? Regards Andy _______________________________________________ straw mailing list straw@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw From hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com Fri Sep 20 10:35:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E639021F9C87 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:35:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NxdRqeoX3jlA for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B05221F9CAF for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r8KHZjaX019278 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:35:46 GMT Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8KHZiVB025801 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:35:45 GMT Received: from abhmt120.oracle.com (abhmt120.oracle.com [141.146.116.72]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8KHZi6C020459; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:35:44 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.108] (/66.31.4.117) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:35:44 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Hadriel Kaplan In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCC99C@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:35:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCC99C@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> To: "Hutton, Andrew" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] Cc: "straw@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:35:53 -0000 Hi Andy, Thanks for reviewing! Comments below... On Sep 19, 2013, at 5:24 AM, "Hutton, Andrew" = wrote: > I have a couple of comments. >=20 > 1. Section 4 states " It is RECOMMENDED that B2BUAs implement the = loop-detection mechanism for the Via header field, as defined for a = Proxy in [RFC5393]." >=20 > This could be changed to a MUST requirement by changing it to "B2BUAs = MUST implement the updates to [RFC3261] for strengthening the = requirements to perform loop detection as specified in [RFC5393]". I = prefer this because it enforces the requirement that some form of = loop-detection must be in place when forking. This was raised back in June here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00127.html I'm fine with changing it to a MUST, but would like to hear more folks = weigh in. =20 As an aside, I'm fairly sure changing it to a MUST won't make B2BUA's = implement that check, because some B2BUAs literally can't do it safely; = that check requires knowing what all of the variables used for routing = requests are, and it's not technically possible to know that in some = architectures. For example, if your architecture allows using external = systems/routing-engines, or scripts/plugins, or something flexible like = that to control SIP request routing decisions... then I don't think you = can safely preform that via header check. (by "safely" I mean accurately = enough to detect legitimate spirals vs. loops) > 2. Section 5 states " B2BUAs MAY perform the same actions for = in-dialog requests, but doing so may cause issues with devices that set = Max-Forwards values based upon the number of received Via or = Record-Route headers" >=20 > I think this could do with some more explanation regarding mid-dialog = requests and the issues associated with setting Max-Forwards based on = Via or Record-Route. It would be good to remove this "MAY" and have = clear requirements for handling mid-dialog requests. Do we really need = to have the text about setting based on the number of via or = record-route headers? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. This doc is about B2BUA = handling copying the Max-Forwards, not about the originating UAC setting = the MAx-Forwards. The text in this section was based on this: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00157.html -hadriel From andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com Fri Sep 20 11:36:39 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0010E21F9D18 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:36:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nc1qfDPFdxmW for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61FC21F9ADD for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id D46C21EB8527; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 20:36:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.31]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 20:36:15 +0200 From: "Hutton, Andrew" To: Hadriel Kaplan Thread-Topic: [straw] WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 Thread-Index: Ac61Ggt1QXAqSuiTQy2zm/49bhHdvwA/QXGAAAW3qMA= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:36:14 +0000 Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCF642@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCC99C@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "straw@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-02 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:36:39 -0000 See below. Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com] > Sent: 20 September 2013 18:36 > To: Hutton, Andrew > Cc: straw@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop- > detection-02 >=20 >=20 > Hi Andy, > Thanks for reviewing! Comments below... >=20 > On Sep 19, 2013, at 5:24 AM, "Hutton, Andrew" enterprise.com> wrote: >=20 > > I have a couple of comments. > > > > 1. Section 4 states " It is RECOMMENDED that B2BUAs implement the > loop-detection mechanism for the Via header field, as defined for a > Proxy in [RFC5393]." > > > > This could be changed to a MUST requirement by changing it to "B2BUAs > MUST implement the updates to [RFC3261] for strengthening the > requirements to perform loop detection as specified in [RFC5393]". I > prefer this because it enforces the requirement that some form of loop- > detection must be in place when forking. >=20 > This was raised back in June here: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00127.html >=20 > I'm fine with changing it to a MUST, but would like to hear more folks > weigh in. >=20 > As an aside, I'm fairly sure changing it to a MUST won't make B2BUA's > implement that check, because some B2BUAs literally can't do it safely; > that check requires knowing what all of the variables used for routing > requests are, and it's not technically possible to know that in some > architectures. For example, if your architecture allows using external > systems/routing-engines, or scripts/plugins, or something flexible like > that to control SIP request routing decisions... then I don't think you > can safely preform that via header check. (by "safely" I mean > accurately enough to detect legitimate spirals vs. loops) >=20 The MUST would only mean that as according to RFC5393 some kind of loop det= ection has to be implemented but if you think this is too strong then I am = ok with how it is. Sorry I had missed the previous discussion. >=20 > > 2. Section 5 states " B2BUAs MAY perform the same actions for in- > dialog requests, but doing so may cause issues with devices that set > Max-Forwards values based upon the number of received Via or Record- > Route headers" > > > > I think this could do with some more explanation regarding mid-dialog > requests and the issues associated with setting Max-Forwards based on > Via or Record-Route. It would be good to remove this "MAY" and have > clear requirements for handling mid-dialog requests. Do we really need > to have the text about setting based on the number of via or record- > route headers? >=20 > I'm not sure I understand what you mean. This doc is about B2BUA > handling copying the Max-Forwards, not about the originating UAC > setting the MAx-Forwards. The text in this section was based on this: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00157.html >=20 Ok now I think I understand the problem is that if the B2BUA decrements Max= -Forwards for mid-dialog requests and the originator set the value based on= the number of Via or Record-Route headers then the value is going to go to= zero. So I still think this needs a bit more explanation so the reader re= ally understands this issue and can make a decision whether this applies in= their environment or not. > -hadriel