Subject: RE: [Sipping] Inter-Domain Requirements for SIP/SIMPLE

From: "Tim Rang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:09:43 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf
> Of Aki Niemi
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 7:36 AM
> To: ext Dean Willis
> Cc: 'Avshalom Houri'; [email-masked]; 'Michael Hammer (mhammer)'
> Subject: Re: [Sipping] Inter-Domain Requirements for SIP/SIMPLE
> 

> Do I, as administrator of akiniemi.net, really need off-line bilateral
> agreements with other domains to be able to communicate with them? Or
> need to maintain a list of "accpetable" domains for which my users can
> send IM and subscribe presence from? i think there are two specific
> problems with this sort of approach:
> 
> 1) Is the provider hosting 100s of millions of users really going to
> talk to me, a provider of 5 users, "off-line" to discuss these
bilateral
> agreements?
> 
> 2) Does not scale beyond a very small number of providers. A bigger
> number of providers would necessitate some sort of broker entities. At
> least the draft should discuss them.
> 
[Tim Rang] I assume you are referring to section 4.3 text-
	The secure connectivity SHOULD be agreed by a bilateral
   	offline agreement.
This statement is made in context of understanding the transport
security mechanism.  If the administrator of akiniemi.net is aware that
the community in which it wishes to reside chooses to implement TLS,
then no additional communication is needed.

The member domains of the community may choose (based on their own
policies) whether to communicate with all domains or a select set of
provisioned domains based on their own internal policies.  Again,
assuming this comment is directed to section 4.1, the RECOMMENDED
statement is that "local edge proxies have the ability to be statically
provisioned".  That doesn't mean the admin has to use it.

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

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:45:11 +0300

Hi,

> then no additional communication is needed.

You mean the Internet community?

> provisioned".  That doesn't mean the admin has to use it.

This is exactly my concern. In the general case, there is only one 
community, the Internet, and by default all domains are members of that 
community.

Closed communities that choose to communicate with only a subset of 
those domains are free to do so, I guess, but IMHO, should not have 
IETF's endorsement for doing so.

Frankly, this makes me think the purpose here is to hinder, rather than 
help, interworking between users in different domains.

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Avshalom Houri <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:17:53 +0300

> this makes me think the purpose here is to hinder, rather than 

This was not our intention. I am very sorry that you feel this way.

I am really concerned that if SIP will continue in this path and the IETF
will not start looking seriously into interoperability issues and leave it 
to
a dozen of other organizations then SIP will not be an interoperable 
standard.
SIP will be only a checkmark on equipment that vendors sell where that 
checkmark
will be followed by dozens of small letter clauses for the differences 
that the
vendor have to make to the standard in order to satisfy the buyer.

The interop issues here are much harder then any other protocol since we
are talking about collaboration services where a user is involved at each 
end of the
line. This is very different from HTTP where a user has to only interact 
with a server
it is very different from every protocol that the IETF have done before. 
Having interop
in SIPIT or SIMPLEt is only a technical interop, there is a very long way 
to go before
getting real interop.

Avshalom