A Clarification on the Use of Globally Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the SIP Event Notification Framework
draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-08-06
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-08-03
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-08-03
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-06-30
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-06-30
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-06-30
|
00 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-06-30
|
00 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2015-06-30
|
00 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-06-30
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tim Wicinski. |
2015-06-30
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2015-06-30
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-06-30
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-06-30
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-06-29
|
00 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-06-25
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-06-25
|
00 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-06-24
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-06-24
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-06-24
|
00 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Tom Taylor's Gen-ART question from a couple of days ago deserves an answer and I haven't seen one yet. |
2015-06-24
|
00 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-06-24
|
00 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-06-24
|
00 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-06-23
|
00 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-06-22
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-06-22
|
00 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-06-22
|
00 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-06-22
|
00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-06-22
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] This was probably caught by now, but the introduction says this update exists because of lack of clarity in RFC2119, when it … [Ballot comment] This was probably caught by now, but the introduction says this update exists because of lack of clarity in RFC2119, when it was meant to say in RFC6665. The SecDir reviewer asked a few clarifying questions that would be good to see answered: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05789.html |
2015-06-22
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-06-19
|
00 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-06-18
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Hilarie Orman. |
2015-06-17
|
00 | Ben Campbell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-06-25 |
2015-06-17
|
00 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-06-17
|
00 | Ben Campbell | Ballot has been issued |
2015-06-17
|
00 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-06-17
|
00 | Ben Campbell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-06-17
|
00 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-06-17
|
00 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-06-17
|
00 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2015-06-16
|
00 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-06-16
|
00 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-06-08
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski |
2015-06-08
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski |
2015-06-05
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2015-06-05
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2015-06-04
|
00 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor |
2015-06-04
|
00 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor |
2015-06-03
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-06-03
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A clarification on the use … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A clarification on the use of Globally Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Framework) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Session Initiation Protocol Core WG (sipcore) to consider the following document: - 'A clarification on the use of Globally Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Framework' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-06-17. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Experience since the publication of the most recent SIP Events framework has shown that there is room for interpretation around the use of Globally Routable User Agent URIs in that specification. This document clarifies the intended behavior. This document updates RFC 6665. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-06-03
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-06-03
|
00 | Ben Campbell | Last call was requested |
2015-06-03
|
00 | Ben Campbell | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-06-03
|
00 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-06-03
|
00 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-06-03
|
00 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-06-03
|
00 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-06-03
|
00 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-05-22
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification@ietf.org, pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org from "Paul Kyzivat" <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> |
2015-05-21
|
00 | Adam Roach | Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00: [This is based on the template version dated 24 February 2012.] (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, … Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00: [This is based on the template version dated 24 February 2012.] (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document is marked as Standards Track in the title page header, and that seems appropriate, because it is clarifying normative behavior in RFC6665, that is itself standards track. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Experience since the publication of the most recent SIP Events framework (RFC6665) has shown that there is room for interpretation around the use of Globally Routable User Agent URIs in that specification. This document clarifies the intended behavior. Working Group Summary Context: The base SIP specification (RFC3261) introduced (implicitly) the notion of dialog reuse - multiple "usages" of a dialog. For instance, an INVITE usage combined with an event subscription, or multiple event subscriptions. The SIP REFER mechanism (RFC3515) provides a widely used mechanism that creates *implicit* SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY dialog usages. When used within an INVITE dialog (as it typically is) it causes dialog reuse. Unfortunately the dialog reuse concept was "half baked", and issues arose around it as it was implemented. This was discussed by RFC5057, recommending that such multiple usages be avoided. RFC5627 added the GRUU mechanism to SIP, providing a way to avoid many instances of dialog sharing. But GRUUs have been controversial - they are complex and far from universally implemented/deployed. A draft (draft-kaplan-dispatch-gruu-problematic-00) raised specific issues with deployment of GRUUs, but that draft expired without having reached consensus. It suggested that GRUUs not be used, and that other mechanisms be used to get around the need for them. But there has been no further work proposed on this since 2011. The elephant in the room is that there are many deployments that still don't provide GRUUs, and don't intend to do so. Some continue to seek ways that they can be compliant with RFC6665 and yet still avoid implementing GRUU, by arranging their feature implementations to carefully avoid any usage that would require them to do so. Nevertheless, all these issues have been aired in the WG, and there is consensus to advance this draft and the companion drafts. Document Quality [Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?] I'm not aware of any implementations yet. It is my understanding that 3GPP release 12 has a reference, indicating that implementations can be expected. This document has been thoroughly reviewed and discussed. Everyone that had something to say has aired it. Personnel The document shepherd is Paul Kyzivat. The area director is Ben Campbell. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The shepherd was a SIPCORE chairman during the entire period while this document was introduced and discussed. He has followed (and participated in) the discussion and reviewed the document carefully. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? NO. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. NO. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. In spite of the apparent consensus on this draft, there is some chance that those who have problems with GRUU simply intend to ignore this draft or pretend/actually fail to support RFC6665. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. YES. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. NO. (9) 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 good consensus. (10) 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 publicly available.) NO. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. One issue from IdNits: == Couldn't figure out when the document was first submitted -- there may comments or warnings related to the use of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work that could not be issued because of this. Please check the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info to determine if you need the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. This issue is bogus for this draft. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references are normative, and appropriately so. (14) 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 plan for their completion? NO. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. NO. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? YES. Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? YES. ** EXCEPT: in intro, ref to RFC2119 should be to 6665. ** Author has been made aware of this. Plan is to fix together with any AD comments. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). IANA considerations are empty, and appropriately so. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. NONE. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. N/A. |
2015-05-21
|
00 | Adam Roach | Responsible AD changed to Ben Campbell |
2015-05-21
|
00 | Adam Roach | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-05-21
|
00 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-05-21
|
00 | Adam Roach | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-05-21
|
00 | Adam Roach | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
2015-04-29
|
00 | Paul Kyzivat | Changed document writeup |
2015-03-25
|
00 | Adam Roach | This document now replaces draft-roach-sipcore-6665-clarification instead of None |
2015-03-25
|
00 | Adam Roach | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-03-25
|
00 | Adam Roach | Notification list changed to "Paul Kyzivat" <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> |
2015-03-25
|
00 | Adam Roach | Document shepherd changed to Paul Kyzivat |
2015-03-25
|
00 | Adam Roach | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
2015-03-25
|
00 | Adam Roach | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2015-02-27
|
00 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00.txt |