Q1: yes, with some minor edits to the draft to include the proxy-proxy type thing, it's clearly valuable work.
Q2: yes, I think those are the set of requirements - though I don't know why we can' expand them in the future if we decide a couple more are required. -hadriel > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Christer Holmberg > Subject: Re: [Sip] Progress draft-holmberg-sip-keep > > (As SIP WG cochair) > > While I am seeing some traffic on the list, I am not yet seeing enough > clear answers to the two questions asked to progress this to the AD as a > charter request. > > Can I ask people who have already participated in the discussion to > repost in regard to the questions asked. > > Can I ask more people in the group to review and and post their opinions > on the two questions. > > Additionally, one issue that has been raised is proxy to proxy usage. If > this draft progresses, is that an additional complexity that should be > in or out? > > Regards > > Keith > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:28 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: 'Christer Holmberg' > > Subject: 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
