Subject: [sipcore] draft-johansson-sip-dual-stack

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:06:54 -0500

[as chair]

It has been brought to our attention that there might be some confusion 
about the status of and venue for discussing the 
draft-johansson-sip-dual-stack document.

The SIPCORE chairs, together with our Area Director and the DISPATCH 
chairs, have determined that the proper working group for this work, if 
it proceeds, is SIPCORE. That said, we have not yet heard enough from 
the community to yet determine whether to add a deliverable to the 
SIPCORE charter for IPv4/IPv6 interactions.

So, the first step here is to determine whether there's enough interest 
to add a milestone for updating or clarifying RFC 3263 procedures when 
both A and AAAA records exist for a single authority.

To be clear, we're deferring a discussion of adopting the johansson 
draft until after we have gauged interest around doing this kind of work 
in the first place. However, interested parties should continue to 
discuss that draft on the SIPCORE mailing list.

If you are interested in SIPCORE taking on a milestone to perform this 
work, please respond on-list with a short message indicating your 
interest, and whether you would be willing to actively participate in 
the associated conversations and document reviews.

Thanks!

/a

---

From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:29:10 -0400

Adam,

Some pf us have already expressed support for this work; are you asking us
to do that again?
If so, then I support this work and would be ready to review and contribute
to this effort.

Regards,
 Rifaat

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:

> chairs, have determined that the proper working group for this work, if it
> proceeds, is SIPCORE. That said, we have not yet heard enough from the
> community to yet determine whether to add a deliverable to the SIPCORE
> charter for IPv4/IPv6 interactions.
>
> So, the first step here is to determine whether there's enough interest to
> add a milestone for updating or clarifying RFC 3263 procedures when both A
> and AAAA records exist for a single authority.
>
> To be clear, we're deferring a discussion of adopting the johansson draft
> until after we have gauged interest around doing this kind of work in the
> first place. However, interested parties should continue to discuss that
> draft on the SIPCORE mailing list.
>
> work, please respond on-list with a short message indicating your interest,
> and whether you would be willing to actively participate in the associated
> conversations and document reviews.
>
> Thanks!
>
> /a
> ______________________________**_________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/sipcore<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>
>

---

From: "Olle E. Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:36:33 +0200

22 okt 2013 kl. 23:06 skrev Adam Roach <[email-masked]>:

> [as chair]
> 
> It has been brought to our attention that there might be some confusion about the status of and venue for discussing the draft-johansson-sip-dual-stack document.
> 
> The SIPCORE chairs, together with our Area Director and the DISPATCH chairs, have determined that the proper working group for this work, if it proceeds, is SIPCORE. That said, we have not yet heard enough from the community to yet determine whether to add a deliverable to the SIPCORE charter for IPv4/IPv6 interactions.
> 
> So, the first step here is to determine whether there's enough interest to add a milestone for updating or clarifying RFC 3263 procedures when both A and AAAA records exist for a single authority.
> 
> To be clear, we're deferring a discussion of adopting the johansson draft until after we have gauged interest around doing this kind of work in the first place. However, interested parties should continue to discuss that draft on the SIPCORE mailing list.
> 
> If you are interested in SIPCORE taking on a milestone to perform this work, please respond on-list with a short message indicating your interest, and whether you would be willing to actively participate in the associated conversations and document reviews.
> 
> Thanks!

Personally I think it's the duty of the IETF to make sure that the transition to IPv6 works smoothly. Without work on dual stack, the SIP vendors will not dare delivering dual stack solutions and we'll stay on IPv4-only VPNs. 

We have proven that there are a lot of issues with dual stack networks at SIPit tests.

So my answer is yes, SIPcore needs to work on this in my opinion.

/O

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:16:56 -0400

> We have proven that there are a lot of issues with dual stack networks at SIPit tests.

I think so too.
But the only resources the IETF has to work on this are the ones reading 
this mail. What we need to know is if there is a sufficient body of 
people willing, and sufficiently knowledgeable, to *contribute*. 
Minimally by reviewing and commenting on drafts. But we need people who 
will do more - provide text, implement, test.

So we are looking for people who will promise to do those things.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Staffan Kerker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:51:00 +0200

> So we are looking for people who will promise to do those things.

I’m happy to review, comment and contribute where possible to this work.

//Staffan

--
Staffan Kerker
mail/sip/xmpp: [email-masked]

"There is absolutely no money above the 5th fret..." /Donald "Duck" Dunn

---

From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:50:54 +0000

> On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:17 PM, "Paul Kyzivat" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> But the only resources the IETF has to work on this are the ones reading this mail. What we need to know is if there is a sufficient body of people willing, and sufficiently knowledgeable, to *contribute*. Minimally by reviewing and commenting on drafts. But we need people who will do more - provide text, implement, test.

I should point out that this deficiency was initially uncovered through interop and performance testing done by the SIP Forum (SIPit) and then subsequently taken on as a work item by the SIP Forum IPv6 TG (copied here).  So, in addition to those who have offered their support and willingness to contribute over the past few weeks, there are other interested (and qualified) folks that could contribute to reviews, implement, test, etc.

Cheers, 

Gonzalo
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:52:01 -0400

> I should point out that this deficiency was initially uncovered through interop and performance testing done by the SIP Forum (SIPit) and then subsequently taken on as a work item by the SIP Forum…

Hopefully they will step up here and volunteer.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "David Hanes (dhanes)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 16:41:55 +0000

I've already provided my support for adoption of this work by SIPCORE.
I'll reiterate here that not only do I support the work, but would be
willing to review and offer feedback.

Thanks,
David

On 10/25/13 1:50 PM, "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>>> Personally I think it's the duty of the IETF to make sure that the
>>>transition to IPv6 works smoothly. Without work on dual stack, the SIP
>>>vendors will not dare delivering dual stack solutions and we'll stay on
>>>IPv4-only VPNs.
>> But the only resources the IETF has to work on this are the ones
>>reading this mail. What we need to know is if there is a sufficient body
>>of people willing, and sufficiently knowledgeable, to *contribute*.
>I should point out that this deficiency was initially uncovered through
>interop and performance testing done by the SIP Forum (SIPit) and then
>subsequently taken on as a work item by the SIP Forum IPv6 TG (copied
>here).  So, in addition to those who have offered their support and
>willingness to contribute over the past few weeks, there are other
>interested (and qualified) folks that could contribute to reviews,
>implement, test, etc.
>
>Cheers, 
>
>Gonzalo
>>

---

From: "Klatsky, Carl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:16:34 +0000

I support this work item also, and would be willing to review & offer feedback as well.

Regards,
Carl Klatsky

I've already provided my support for adoption of this work by SIPCORE.
I'll reiterate here that not only do I support the work, but would be willing to review and offer feedback.

Thanks,
David

On 10/25/13 1:50 PM, "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>>>transition to IPv6 works smoothly. Without work on dual stack, the 
>>>SIP vendors will not dare delivering dual stack solutions and we'll 
>>>stay on IPv4-only VPNs.
>>reading this mail. What we need to know is if there is a sufficient 
>>body of people willing, and sufficiently knowledgeable, to *contribute*.
>>Minimally by reviewing and commenting on drafts. But we need people 
>>who will do more - provide text, implement, test.
>

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:46:51 -0500

> both A and AAAA records exist for a single authority.

Adam: I am not averse to adopting this work but do want to point out
that it may end up impacting more than rfc3263.

Contrary to what draft-johansson-sip-dual-stack states, rfc6157 also
deals with the signaling aspects of dual-stack SIP entities (see
S3 of rfc6157).

The recommendation in rfc6157 is for autonomous systems to deploy dual-
stack servers or both IPv4-only and IPv6-only and populate DNS with
A and AAAA RRs.  My understanding is that draft-johansson-sip-dual-stack
does not obviate these recommendations but rather adds an additional
requirement that DNS be populated such that a certain address family
is preferred.

So, as we grapple with where to do this work, it may be that it touches
more than rfc3263 and may impact rfc6157 as well.  We do not want to
end up in a situation where there are multiple drafts specifying dual-
stack behaviour.

I don't know whether it makes sense for draft-johansson-sip-dual-stack
to update S3 of rfc6157, but note that rfc6157 does not update rfc3263.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:05:15 -0400

Vijay,

IMO we have now seen enough support to justify some sort of work item.

One thing we need to decide is how broadly to scope the work item.
We could try to scope it as narrowly as possible - about how a dual 
stack server should deal with SIP URIs containing domain names. Or we 
could scope it more broadly to clarifying all the aspects of mixing IPv4 
and IPv6 usage in SIP.

I'd be interested in hearing opinions about that.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "Olle E. Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:42:37 +0100

On 29 Oct 2013, at 18:05, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We could try to scope it as narrowly as possible - about how a dual stack server should deal with SIP URIs containing domain names. Or we could scope it more broadly to clarifying all the aspects of mixing IPv4 and IPv6 usage in SIP.
> 
In the SIP Forum IPv6 wg the next item would be how to set up connections after we have found the A and AAAA addresses. That will be a separate draft - a happy eyeballs for SIP signalling. I guess some people remember my questions about Happy Eyeballs for UDP at the Berlin meeting ;-)

I must have misread RFC 6157 earlier and will need to re-read it thanks to Vijay's response, but there will be more work ahead after this DNS item is resolved. 

Personally I don't understand Cullen's objection to updating RFC 3263, but that's something we need to discuss after the decision about this being a workgroup item. I am still learning about IETF and RFC formalia ;-)

/O

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:52:03 -0500

> IMO we have now seen enough support to justify some sort of work item.

Paul: Yes, absolutely.

> I'd be interested in hearing opinions about that.

As I said in my previous email, it seems to me after reading 
draft-johansson-sip-dual-stack that it adds an additional recommendation
to rfc6157 to convey address family preference via DNS for signaling.
rfc6157 already prescribes that for media, both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses
should be gathered and used in ICE.  But it is clear, at least from
the SIPit 29 [1], that the user agents are not doing so.

Right now, handling dual-stack servers is straddled across rfc3263 and
rfc6157.  At the very least, when we go down the path of adding a work 
item, we should scope it such that the normative and informative
knowledge around SIP in dual-stack environments, for both media and
signaling, is contained in one document.

I'd be happy to contribute to this.

[1] https://www.sipit.net/SIPit29_summary

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:06:17 +0000

On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As I said in my previous email, it seems to me after reading draft-johansson-sip-dual-stack that it adds an additional recommendation
> rfc6157.  At the very least, when we go down the path of adding a work item, we should scope it such that the normative and informative

The original scope of the draft was centered around updating 3263 and kept intentionally narrow.  Vijay's comments make sense and my interpretation of their impact is that perhaps the update of 6157 would be a reasonably manageable addition without making the scope a massive multi-year project.
> I'd be happy to contribute to this.

We'd appreciate it.

Cheers,

Gonzalo