Subject: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:50:02 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Session Initiation Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Referring to Multiple Resources in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
	Author(s)	: G. Camarillo, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-01.txt
	Pages		: 15
	Date		: 2007-1-8
	
This document defines extensions to the SIP REFER method so that this
   method can be used to refer servers to multiple resources.  These
   extensions include the use of pointers to Uniform Resource Identifier
   (URI)-lists in the Refer-To header field and the "multiple-refer" SIP
   option-tag.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-01.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
"get draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
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: Jaimin Pancholi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:47:05 +0530

Question:
=======

As per the draft:
   If the URI-list of the REFER request contains a repeated URI, the
   REFER-Recipient MUST behave as if that URI appeared in the URI-list
   only once.  The REFER-Recipient uses the comparison rules specific to
   the URI scheme of each of the URIs in the URI-list to determine if
   there is any URI which appears more than once.

Now if URI is appearing twice with different copy control or other
attribute,
which URI should REFER-Recipients consider

Also this may cause the processing delay at REFER-Recipients side if
multiple-refer
contains many URIs and each one needs to be compared against

Regards
Jaimin

Email Privacy Declaration
****************************************************************************
***********
	This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from
HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is
listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way
(including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction,
or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is
prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it!

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:20 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-01.txt
>
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line 
>Internet-Drafts directories.
>To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a 
>message to [email-masked] with the word 
>unsubscribe in the body of the message. 
>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login 
>with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail 
>address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
>http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or 
>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail 
>reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII 
>version of the Internet-Draft.
>

---

From: "Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 12:34:03 +0100

I have just submitted the request to IESG to publish this document as
proposed standard.

As a result the document will now go through IESG review.

The required PROTO writeup follows at the end of this mail

Regards

Keith

Keith Drage
[email-masked]
tel: +44 1793 776249

PROTO writeup for http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-
multiple-refer-01.txt: "Refering to Multiple Resources in the Session 
Initiation Protocol (SIP)"

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Keith Drage

The document has been reviewed and is ready for forwarding to IESG for 
publication.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

Document history:
*	draft-camarillo-sipping-exploders-solution-00 was submitted
November 
22nd 2003 and expired May 22nd 2004.
*	draft-camarillo-sipping-exploders-00 was submitted September 9th
2003 
and expired March 9th 2004.
*	draft-camarillo-sipping-exploders-02 was submitted February 6th
2004 
and expired August 6th 2004.
*	draft-camarillo-sipping-exploders-03 was submitted February 2004
and 
expired August 1st 2004.
*	draft-camarillo-sipping-multiple-refer-00 was submitted February
2004 
and expired August 2004.
*	draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-00 was submitted July 2004 and

expired January 2005.
*	draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-01 was submitted November 2004
and 
expired April 2005.
*	draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-02 was submitted 2nd December
2004 
and expired 2nd June 2005.
*	draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-03 was submitted 15th April
2005 and 
expired 15th October 2005.
*	draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-04 was submitted 24th October
2005 
and expired 24th April 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-05 was submitted 5th November
2005 
and expired 5th May 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-06 was submitted 27th June
2006 and 
expired 27th December 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-00 was submitted 24th September
2006 and 
expires 24th March 2007.
*	draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-01 was submitted 8th January 2007
and 
expires 8th July 2007.

WGLC was initiated in the SIPPING WG on
draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-02 
on 12th January 2005 with comments requested by 12th February 2005.

Review was made and comments were received from: Nils Ohlmeier. During
the 
course of the work comments have also been made by: Cullen Jenning,
Sharon 
Fridman, Dale Worley, Jeroen van Bemmel, Darshan Bildikar, Dean Willis.

draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-06 was extended to refer to
draft-ietf-
sipping-capacity-attribute and also synchronized with RFC 4488
(suppression 
of REFER implicit subscription).

The document was moved from the SIPPING WG to the SIP WG in conformance
with 
RFC 3427 because it defines an option tag (this was added at a late
stage in 
the review process). The document was regarded by the SIPPING WG chairs
as 
being adequately reviewed and no further review took place in the SIP
WG. 
The SIP mailing list was polled on this status and no complaint was
made.

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

The document defines mechanisms that are entirely internal to the
Session 
Initiation Protocol (SIP). The document shepherd considers that no
external 
review from an external specialist is necessary. While the document
makes 
use of XML within a SIP message body, that XML is defined by other
documents 
(RFC 4488, draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-05), and used in this 
specification by reference.

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.

The document defines a new SIP protocol extension for a particular
purpose 
in a form that has been used for many other extensions. The document 
shepherd has no concerns with the document.

   (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

There is a strong requirement from OMA for a SIP solution in this area.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

None indicated.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The document has been reviewed against the guidelines in RFC 4485 and it
is 
believed that the document is conformant with those guidelines.

While the document defines a new SIP option tag, these have been
performed 
as a SIP working group item, and therefore this draft is in conformance
with 
RFC 3427.

For ID-NITS the document has been checked against idnits 1.123 and no
issues 
have been found.

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document has split its references into normative and informative 
references. All the normative references are now published RFCs except
as 
follows:
*	reference [9] draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-05 is in IESG
review 
as proposed standard.
*	reference [10] draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-06 has been
submitted 
to the IESG by the SIPPING group as proposed standard.
*	reference [11] draft-ietf-sipping-capacity-attribute-03 is
currently 
in WGLC in the SIPPING group.

Of the informative references, there is only one open reference [14]
draft-
ietf-sip-gruu-11 which is expected to be submitted by the SIP WG to IESG

shortly. 

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggested a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See
          [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
          describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with
          the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the
          needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Section 11 of the document registers a new option-tag; the new
option-tag is 
defined elsewhere in the document. This registration is consistent with
RFC 
3968 which defines the registry and is also consistent with the current 
format of the registry.

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

The document contains no entries written in formal language. While the 
document makes use of XML within a SIP message body, that XML is defined
by 
other documents (RFC 4488, draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-05), and
used 
in this specification by reference. Figures 1 and 3 contain an example
of 
this XML usage which is apparently well-formed.

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document defines extensions to the SIP REFER method so that this
method 
can be used to refer servers to multiple resources.  These extensions 
include the use of pointers to Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)-lists
in 
the Refer-To header field and the "multiple-refer" SIP option-tag.

Working Group Summary

The document was originally produced by the SIPPING working group, but
was 
transferred to the SIP working group due to the need to define a new
option 
tag, in conformance with RFC 3427. There is consensus in the WG to
publish 
this document.

Document Quality

There is a strong requirement from OMA for a SIP solution in this area.

Personnel

Keith Drage is the document shepherd for this document. Cullen Jennings
is 
the responsible Area Director.

> Sent: 08 January 2007 20:50

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:48:28 -0500

From: Jaimin Pancholi <[email-masked]>

   As per the draft:

   Now if URI is appearing twice with different copy control or other
   attribute, which URI should [be used?]

The problem is worse than this.  Due to the strange rules for SIP URI
equivalence, these are equivalent:

	sip:[email-masked]
	sip:[email-masked];parameter=value

and these are equivalent:

	sip:[email-masked]
	sip:[email-masked];parameter=other-value

but these are *not* equivalent:

	sip:[email-masked];parameter=value
	sip:[email-masked];parameter=other-value

So if all three are present in a URI-list, it's not even clear how
many should be used.

I seem to remember having a similar problem in the GRUU discussion,
and the outcome was that the GRUU I-D needed to define a new
comparison between SIP URIs that was stricter than 3261's
"equivalence".

It appears that we need that same comparison here.

This leads me to ask if we should entirely replace the definition of
"equivalent URIs" in section 19.1.4 of RFC 3261.  I did a quick search
of the text of 3261, and it doesn't appear that the equivalence of
URIs is *used* anywhere.

Dale

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:29:46 -0500

Dale,

You make a good point in this case. But we need to step carefully before 
making sweeping changes.

You say you don't find any *use* of URI comparison in 3261. Actually 
there is at least one, in section 10.3, step 7. It is used to compare 
Contact URIs in the request to those already registered.

It seems to me that there is simply a need for multiple comparison rules 
for different circumstances.

	Paul

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:40:14 +0200

Jaimin, Dael:

The draft speaks about repeated URIs, meaning equivalent URIs.

I see the point that Dale wrote on equivalent URIs, which has been 
already discovered by GRUU. I also agree that we should have similar 
considerations here.

If we need such text, it should be written in the framework for URI-list 
services, since it applies to any draft, not only the REFER draft.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-06.txt

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:[email-masked]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland