Subject: [Sip] Are we done with draft-ietf-sip-target-dialog-02.txt and ready to request publication?

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:07:42 -0500

We started WGLC on this draft last July, and it's been revved since  
in response to the comments in WGLC.

Everybody happy with it now?

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:02:42 -0400

Wellll, I had hoped we're done, but there is a thread running (so far, 
just me and Jeroen van Bemmel) that does raise an open issue. Unless we 
can resolve on the list, we'll need time on the agenda after all, and we 
can't send to IESG until its resolved.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

Dean Willis wrote:

> 
> We started WGLC on this draft last July, and it's been revved since  in 
> response to the comments in WGLC.
> 

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:41:34 -0500

Joy. I've put a placeholder back into the agenda. Keep us posted please.

--
Dean

On Oct 28, 2005, at 5:02 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> Wellll, I had hoped we're done, but there is a thread running (so  
> far, just me and Jeroen van Bemmel) that does raise an open issue.  
> Unless we can resolve on the list, we'll need time on the agenda  
> after all, and we can't send to IESG until its resolved.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan R.
>
> Dean Willis wrote:
>
>
>> We started WGLC on this draft last July, and it's been revved  
>> since  in response to the comments in WGLC.

--
dean

---

From: "Jeroen van Bemmel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:13:35 +0100

I just learned about the remote call control draft, which appears to be one 
of the first to be using Target-Dialog (its usage was introduced with 
the -02 version of the draft).

Interestingly, the remote-cc-02 draft is not using it for authorization 
purposes (yet) as seems to be the main intention formulated in the 
target-dialog draft. Rather, it states that the Target-Dialog header MUST be 
used "to select the appropriate dialog from which to source the request". I 
would say that - based on the name of the header - this would be one of the 
most obvious usages of the header, but the target-dialog draft does not 
really discuss this aspect.

This leads to some questions:
1) Is the way the remote cc draft is using the Target-Dialog header 
appropriate / desirable ?
2) If yes, should this be documented in the target-dialog draft?

In particular, I think the target-dialog draft should then e.g. discuss 
which error response code is sent back when there is no match on the 
Target-Dialog. A '403 Unauthorised' would not seem appropriate in this case. 
Perhaps a new response code would need to be introduced

Likewise, the remote cc draft could mention the authorization aspects of the 
Target-Dialog header as a security consideration (currently, it recommends 
Digest Authentication)

Regards,

jeroen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Rosenberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip] Are we done with draft-ietf-sip-target-dialog-02.txt 
andready to request publication?