Real Time Internet Peering for Telephony (RIPT) Comparison with the Session Initiaton Protocol (SIP)
draft-rosenberg-dispatch-ript-sipdiffs-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2020-02-07
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                       J. Rosenberg
Internet-Draft                                                     Five9
Intended status: Standards Track                        February 7, 2020
Expires: August 10, 2020

  Real Time Internet Peering for Telephony (RIPT) Comparison with the
                    Session Initiaton Protocol (SIP)
               draft-rosenberg-dispatch-ript-sipdiffs-00

Abstract

   The Real-Time Internet Peering for Telephony (RIPT) protocol and its
   extension for inbound calls to single user devices provide an
   alternative to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for several use
   cases.  This leads to many questions - how is RIPT different from SIP
   and why?  What should be standardized and what should not?  How much
   of SIP do those two specifications replace?  This document discusses
   the differences and their motivations, and presents an analysis
   across the set of SIP specifications, and analyzes whether the two
   RIPT documents replace each with similar capability, whether they
   eliminate the need for that specification, or whether some or all of
   that specification are not addressed by RIPT.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                RIPT vs. SIP                 February 2020

   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  How is RIPT Different from SIPT?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Ontop of HTTP, not Alongside of HTTP  . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  State Lives in Servers, not on Clients  . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.3.  Configuration is Automatic, not Manual  . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.4.  Secure CallerID Only, not Insecure  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.5.  HTTP Load Balancing, not DNS or SIP Proxies . . . . . . .   9
     2.6.  Client-Server, not Multi-Element  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.7.  Client-Server, not Agent-to-Agent . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.8.  Signaling and Media Together  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.9.  URIs not IPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.10. OAuth not MTLS or private IP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.11. TLS not SRTP or SIPS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     2.12. Calls Separate from Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     2.13. Path Validation, not ICE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     2.14. Load Balancer Stickiness, not Contact header field and
           RTP IPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   3.  What should be Standardized?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.  Can RIPT Really Replace SIP?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     4.1.  Core Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.1.1.  The Main SIP Spec - RFC3261 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.1.2.  RFC3262 - Reliability of Provisional Responses  . . .  19
       4.1.3.  RFC3263 - DNS SRV for SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       4.1.4.  RFC3264 - Offer/Answer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       4.1.5.  RFC3265 - SIP Events  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.2.  SIP Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       4.2.1.  SIP INFO (RFC 2976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       4.2.2.  UPDATE (RFC 3311) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       4.2.3.  Resource Management and SIP (RFC 3312)  . . . . . . .  22
       4.2.4.  Privacy Header (RFC 3323) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       4.2.5.  P-Asserted-ID (RFC 3325)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
Show full document text