Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-outbound

From: "Christer Holmberg \(JO/LMF\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:13:34 +0200

Hi,

I was not at the face-to-face meeting, but from the mail discussion I
haven't seen a sign of consensus.

I think we should get the pros and cons of each solution documented, and
go from there. Maybe that study was done and discussed at the
face-to-face meeting, but then I would ask Keith (or someone else) to
share that study with the rest of us, so we can see what the facts the
consensus was made based on.

I am not saying that PING would be the best solution, but I do agree
with Frank that one solution does not necessarily preclude others.

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank W. Miller [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 25. maaliskuuta 2006 4:37
To: Drage, Keith (Keith)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-outbound

On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 00:51 +0000, Drage, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> (as chair)
> 
> As a result of the face-to-face meeting held at IETF #65, we agreed in
the room on the keepalive mechanism:
> 
> -	OS TCP KeepAlive should be used if the client supports it.
> -	Need something more because OS TCP KeepAlive is not supported in
every client OS.
> -	Consensus to use STUN for UDP
> -	Consensus to use STUN for TCP, with use of OS TCP keep alive
above.

> 2)	Working group: Any dissent to the agreements listed above or do
we have rough consensus to proceed according to the agreements made in
the meeting

I have dissent on the use of STUN exclusively for keepalive.  I believe
that a SIP based mechanism such as the PING draft I proposed is a better
solution.  The essence of my objection is that I think it is a mistake
to have both STUN and SIP residing on the same port.  I think this makes
little sense for three reasons: 1) its architecturally in conflict with
the way most other protocols are defined, i.e. each protocol generally
lives on its own port, 2) it unnecessarily complicates implementations
when there is a very simple way to do it within SIP, and most
importantly 3) it is going to make it very difficult to use STUN for the
same task with other protocols that will need keepalives.  Also, I don't
believe that the performance issues that have been put forth are
substantive enough to cause the architectural violations that result
from using STUN this way.

If the group is dead set on using STUN this way, the SIP way should at
least be acknowledged by 1) including a ;keepalive=ping tag for the URI
in the outbound draft and 2) allowing the PING draft to become an ietf
draft.  These actions place very little additional burden on
implementors and will allow the "market" to decide which is the right
one to be used operationally.

Dissent registered.

FM

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:55:35 -0600

> haven't seen a sign of consensus.

Having been the judge-of-consensus at the meeting, I noted about 185  
hands in favor of STUN and about 5 holding out for PING.

That's a pretty strong rough consensus. Admittedly, some of the more  
vocal PING proponents weren't present, but my sense of the matter is  
that the wider body of opinion does favor pursuing the  
standardization of the STUN approach.

There was also a clear sense that the community wanted to document a  
single path rather than a set of alternatives. We've had a lot of  
folks recently airing frustrations about our usual tendency to  
document all proposed solutions to every problem and the rather  
horrible interoperability problem that approach might (or may already  
have) lead to.

--
Dean Willis
Chair, SIP working group

---

From: "Brett Tate" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:56:15 -0500

> Having been the judge-of-consensus at the meeting, 
> I noted about 185  hands in favor of STUN and 
> about 5 holding out for PING.

And at least 2 for double CRLF on TCP. :)

<snip>

> We've had a lot of folks recently airing frustrations 
> about our usual tendency to document all proposed 
> solutions to every problem and the rather horrible 
> interoperability problem that approach might (or may 
> already have) lead to.

This seems like a good reason for this (or another) draft to discuss the
alternative solutions for use until the STUN solution is supported by both
devices.  Since the draft is basically silent, vendors will just fallback to
flooding the network with their favorite SIP request (REGISTERs, etcetera)
for solving the problem without much guidance or potential optimizations.

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:49:55 -0600

> And at least 2 for double CRLF on TCP. :)

I stand corrected ;-)

> for solving the problem without much guidance or potential  

That would seem to be reasonably in the scope of the SIPPING WG as a  
"BCP For SIP Keepalive In The Absence of STUN" or something like that.

Could go into the Outbound draft, but it doesn't really need to, and  
it's likely to leave the historical record muddy if merged.

--
Dean