My 2 cents: it is a useful draft. Personally, I would like to have it available for two reasons not cited: PBX connections a la SIP trunks, and proxy-proxy connections. Today I think a lot of people are using OPTIONS requests or proprietary means to perform such keep-alives when registration is not appropriate, but it has led to some interop issues and performance concerns in some cases.
Since the contentious issue of what form the keep-alives take have already been agreed on for outbound, this seems like a simple draft to get done. (famous last words, I know) -hadriel > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:31 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Christer Holmberg > Subject: [Sip] Progress draft-holmberg-sip-keep > > (As SIP WG cochair) > > We have been asked by the author of > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-holmberg-sip-keep-01.txt > > Whether the SIP WG can progress this document. > > Because this draft arose as a result of the discussion of outbound, and > indeed seems to reuse the requirements from outbound, and these > requirements never really got handled in the SIPPING WG, it has been > agreed with the SIPPING chairs that we will handle this entirely within > SIP. > > Now in order to ask for charter milestones, and indeed when we finally > present this to IESG, we will be asked for the level of support in the > WG, which is also predicated on does this fix a real problem, or is it > just a corner case with limited application. So: > > QUESTION 1 TO SIP WG: Are the use cases sufficiently important to > proceed with this draft? The document states: > > Chapter 3.5 of draft-ietf-sip-outbound-13 [I-D.ietf-sip-outbound] > defines two keep-alive techniques. Even though the keep-alive > techniques are separated from the Outbound mechanism > [I-D.ietf-sip-outbound], it is currently not possible to indicate > support of the keep-alive techniques without also indicating support > for the Outbound mechanism. > > The Outbound mechanism is enabled during the UA registration phase. > However, there are use-cases where the UA does not register itself, > but still needs to be able to make calls and maintain NAT bindings > open during the duration of that call. A typical example is > emergency calls. There are also cases where entities do not support > the Outbound mechanism, but still want to be able to indicate support > and use the keep-alive techniques defined in [I-D.ietf-sip-outbound]. > > At first sight this is not the most inspiring declaration of the need > for the document. Please respond indicating whether you consider this a > useful draft, and propose text that you think would be useful in this > section. Conversely, if you think this draft is not useful and the WG > has other more important things to work on first, please also respond. > > QUESTION 2 TO SIP WG: Do we have a robust set of requirements for > proceeding with this work? The document currently lists: > > REQ 1: It MUST be possible for a UA to indicate support of the keep- > alive techniques defined [I-D.ietf-sip-outbound] if the UA supports > only the keep-alive part of [I-D.ietf-sip-outbound]. > > REQ 2: It MUST be possible for an edge proxy to indicate support of > the keep-alive techniques defined [I-D.ietf-sip-outbound] if the edge > poxy supports only the keep-alive part of [I-D.ietf-sip-outbound]. > > It would be desirable to agree these at the outset, and not revisit them > if we continue with the work. So if you require clarification, > modification, or addition to these two requirements, then please also > response with your questions and proposals. > > I suggest we would like responses by 30th June 2008 in order to allow > the author to revise the document before the deadlines. Please note that > we are looking to make this decision on the list within this deadline > based on responses received, not leave it until the Dublin meeting. > > Regards > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
