An Architecture for Media Recording Using the Session Initiation Protocol
draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-12
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-05-19
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-05-05
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-05-05
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-03-01
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-02-28
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-02-28
|
12 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-02-28
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2014-02-27
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-02-27
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2014-02-27
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2014-02-27
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-02-27
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-02-27
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-02-27
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-02-27
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | New revision available |
2014-01-17
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-01-16
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Telechat review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-01-10
|
11 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] THIS REVIEW WAS DONE BEFORE THE TELECHAT. AN INTERNET ACCESS FAILURE BEFORE THE TELECHAT PREVENTED ME TO POST IT. 1. It's true that … [Ballot comment] THIS REVIEW WAS DONE BEFORE THE TELECHAT. AN INTERNET ACCESS FAILURE BEFORE THE TELECHAT PREVENTED ME TO POST IT. 1. It's true that the draft content might be reading as an applicability statement. However, I believe the current status is right (as opposed to Barry, Brian, and Spencer). The WG Milestones are Done Use Cases and Requirements to IESG as Informational RFC Jan 2013 Submit Architecture to IESG as Informational RFC Apr 2013 Submit protocol draft to IESG as Proposed Standard RFC Aug 2013 Submit Metadata model and format to IESG as Proposed Standard RFC Aug 2013 Submit SIPREC Call Flows draft to IESG as an informational RFC. We should not confuse the architecture, which comes before the protocol and metadata model/format, and the applicability statement, which is how to apply the protocol and metadata model/format for specific use cases. So, also citing RFC 2026: "specifies how, and under what circumstances, one or more Technical Specifications may be applied to support a particular Internet capability.", the technical specifications are not ready yet, so this document can't be an applicability statement. 2. As a non English native speaker, let me correct an English sentence ... or look stupid and learn something. Not sure yet, as "means" is a weird name. OLD: Such Recording unaware UA will be notified that a session is being recorded or express preferences as to whether a recording should be started, paused, resumed or stopped via some other means that is out of scope for the SIP media recording architecture. NEW: Such Recording unaware UA will be notified that a session is being recorded or express preferences as to whether a recording should be started, paused, resumed or stopped via some other means that are out of scope for the SIP media recording architecture. |
2014-01-10
|
11 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-01-09
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-01-09
|
11 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot comment] Former DISCUSS, which I am clearing: This is probably a stupid question, and I will clear on the telechat regardless of what the … [Ballot comment] Former DISCUSS, which I am clearing: This is probably a stupid question, and I will clear on the telechat regardless of what the answer is. I may just have missed the discussion because I read the document rather quickly. The question is, why doesn't the document talk about reliable delivery? If recording a session is a regulatory requirement, then surely the recording should be lossless on the side of the connection that is subject to the requirement. It's my understanding that a typical stream negotiated through SIP is loss-tolerant. This seems like a mismatch that ought to be addressed somehow. |
2014-01-09
|
11 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Lemon has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-01-09
|
11 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot discuss] This is probably a stupid question, and I will clear on the telechat regardless of what the answer is. I may just have … [Ballot discuss] This is probably a stupid question, and I will clear on the telechat regardless of what the answer is. I may just have missed the discussion because I read the document rather quickly. The question is, why doesn't the document talk about reliable delivery? If recording a session is a regulatory requirement, then surely the recording should be lossless on the side of the connection that is subject to the requirement. It's my understanding that a typical stream negotiated through SIP is loss-tolerant. This seems like a mismatch that ought to be addressed somehow. |
2014-01-09
|
11 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-01-09
|
11 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2014-01-09
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] This was a discuss, but Andrew Hutton reasonably suggests handling it in the metadata draft which is fine. It'd be nice to add … [Ballot comment] This was a discuss, but Andrew Hutton reasonably suggests handling it in the metadata draft which is fine. It'd be nice to add a sentence to this one too just noting the implicit requirement. Thanks for the nice clear document with references to 2804. I do have a privacy related question though. 3.3.1 here only points at I-D.ietf-siprec-metadata which specifies all of the various things the can be metadata but doesn't seem to say which ought or ought not be recorded. And neither does this document. I assume there's an implicit requirement to only record metadata that's needed, but where is/should that be stated? - section 5, if the SRS doesn't authenticate the SRC couldn't that allow for DoS attacks, e.g. to overload the SRS so that a call you don't want recorded doesn't get recorded? Might be worth a mention. |
2014-01-09
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-01-08
|
11 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-01-08
|
11 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-01-08
|
11 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2014-01-08
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for the nice clear document with references to 2804. I do have a privacy related question though. 3.3.1 here only points at … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for the nice clear document with references to 2804. I do have a privacy related question though. 3.3.1 here only points at I-D.ietf-siprec-metadata which specifies all of the various things the can be metadata but doesn't seem to say which ought or ought not be recorded. And neither does this document. I assume there's an implicit requirement to only record metadata that's needed, but where is/should that be stated? |
2014-01-08
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - section 5, if the SRS doesn't authenticate the SRC couldn't that allow for DoS attacks, e.g. to overload the SRS so that … [Ballot comment] - section 5, if the SRS doesn't authenticate the SRC couldn't that allow for DoS attacks, e.g. to overload the SRS so that a call you don't want recorded doesn't get recorded? Might be worth a mention. |
2014-01-08
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-01-08
|
11 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-01-07
|
11 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-01-06
|
11 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Like Brian, I am sympathetic to Barry's point about standards track AS, but I would be a Yes either way. |
2014-01-06
|
11 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-01-06
|
11 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I am sympathetic to Barry's point about standards track AS, but I would be a Yes either way. |
2014-01-06
|
11 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-01-06
|
11 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I agree with Barry's point on the status of this document. If it were changed to a Standards Track Applicability Statement, it would … [Ballot comment] I agree with Barry's point on the status of this document. If it were changed to a Standards Track Applicability Statement, it would make much more sense to me. |
2014-01-06
|
11 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-01-03
|
11 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-01-02
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2014-01-02
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2013-12-30
|
11 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] The only (non-blocking) comment I have on this is about its status: it strikes me that it doesn't define an "architecture", so much … [Ballot comment] The only (non-blocking) comment I have on this is about its status: it strikes me that it doesn't define an "architecture", so much as it "specifies how, and under what circumstances, one or more Technical Specifications may be applied to support a particular Internet capability." (That's a quote from RFC 2026, Section 3.2.) In other words, this looks like an Applicability Statement, which is tied to the Technical Specifications it uses, and which might progress along with them. No big deal: I don't object to its being Informational. I just think AS (and, therefore, Standards Track) is a better match. |
2013-12-30
|
11 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-12-05
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2013-12-05
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2013-12-05
|
11 | Andrew Hutton | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2013-12-05
|
11 | Andrew Hutton | New version available: draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-11.txt |
2013-12-05
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore |
2013-12-05
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore |
2013-12-03
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2013-12-03
|
10 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-01-09 |
2013-12-03
|
10 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2013-12-03
|
10 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot has been issued |
2013-12-03
|
10 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-12-03
|
10 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-12-03
|
10 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-12-02
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-12-02
|
10 | Andrew Hutton | New version available: draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-10.txt |
2013-10-30
|
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2013-10-30
|
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-10-18
|
09 | Andrew Hutton | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2013-10-18
|
09 | Andrew Hutton | New version available: draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-09.txt |
2013-10-03
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Derek Atkins. |
2013-10-01
|
08 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call (ends 2013-10-01) |
2013-09-20
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-09-20
|
08 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2013-09-19
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2013-09-19
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2013-09-19
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2013-09-19
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2013-09-17
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-09-17
|
08 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (An Architecture for Media Recording … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (An Architecture for Media Recording using the Session Initiation Protocol) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the SIP Recording WG (siprec) to consider the following document: - 'An Architecture for Media Recording using the Session Initiation Protocol' as Informational RFC 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 2013-10-01. 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 Session recording is a critical requirement in many communications environments such as call centers and financial trading. In some of these environments, all calls must be recorded for regulatory, compliance, and consumer protection reasons. Recording of a session is typically performed by sending a copy of a media stream to a recording device. This document describes architectures for deploying session recording solutions in an environment which is based on the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-siprec-architecture/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-siprec-architecture/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-09-17
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-09-17
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-09-16
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Last call was requested |
2013-09-16
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-09-16
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-09-16
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2013-09-16
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | State Change Notice email list changed to siprec-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-siprec-architecture@tools.ietf.org |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | Responsible AD changed to Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | Changed document writeup |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | Document shepherd changed to Brian Rosen |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2013-09-13
|
08 | Brian Rosen | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2013-05-23
|
08 | Leon Portman | New version available: draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-08.txt |
2012-11-21
|
07 | Leon Portman | New version available: draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-07.txt |
2012-09-09
|
06 | Leon Portman | New version available: draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-06.txt |
2012-05-30
|
05 | Leon Portman | New version available: draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-05.txt |
2012-03-27
|
04 | Andrew Hutton | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2012-03-12
|
04 | Andrew Hutton | WGLC Deadline 6th of April 2012 |
2012-03-12
|
04 | Leon Portman | New version available: draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-04.txt |
2011-10-03
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-03.txt |
2011-04-13
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-02.txt |
2010-10-20
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-01.txt |
2010-06-29
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-00.txt |