Subject: [sipcore] Minutes from the IETF 103 sipcore session

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 16:31:35 -0600

Hi all,

Below is my summary of the session in Bangkok. Below the summary are the 
notes that Roland took during the session. Thanks, Roland!

Please post any comments or corrections to the list by Nov 16.

Thanks!

Jean

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIPCORE - IETF 103 Bangkok
2018 November 08, Thursday
11:20- 12:20, Chitlada 3

Co-Chairs: Jean Mahoney, Brian Rosen
Substitute co-chairs for meeting: Nils Ohlmeier, Gonzalo Salguiero
AD: Ben Campbell

Jabber relay: Ben Campbell
Note taker: Roland Jesske

Agenda:

    05 min - Agenda and WG Status
             Presenter: Jean Mahoney

    45 min - SIP Session Timer Glare Handling
             Draft: draft-ietf-sipcore-sessiontimer-race
             Presenter: Christer Holmberg

    05 min - Any Other Business/Wrap Up

Nils and Gonzalo presented the agenda; there were no changes.

Jean Mahoney (remote) presented WG status 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sipcore-chairs-slides-00); 
there were no comments.

Christer Holmberg presented SIP Session Timer Glare Handling 
(draft-ietf-sipcore-sessiontimer-race, 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-sipcore-session-timer-glare-handling-00). 

Roland Jesske supported the solution in the slides. Roman Shpount had 
technical feedback on the slides, but would provide it on list.

It was discussed whether a RFC4028bis draft should be created rather 
than going forward draft-ietf-sipcore-sessiontimer-race. Consensus in 
the room was that a bis should be created, and tightly scoped to fixing 
bugs and ambiguities that caused problems in the field. Editorial 
changes and enhancements were out of scope. Ben Campbell pointed out 
that the IESG finds it easier to review bis documents that have not been 
rearranged or heavily wordsmithed. Jean wondered if the WG might find a 
requirements draft for the bis useful. Response was a strong no.

ACTION: Chairs to ask on list whether a RFC4028bis draft should be 
created instead of going forward draft-ietf-sipcore-sessiontimer-race. 
DONE 2018 Nov 8.

No other business was brought up.

Meeting adjourned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of SIPCORE was presented. See Chair Slides.

No Discussion.

Christer presenting slides on “Session Timer” based on discussions made 
on the list regarding draft-ietf-sipcore-sessiontimer-race.

GitHub was opened for issues to be tracked.

Note: Current draft does not reflect the current status of discussion. A 
new draft will follow.

Result of Meeting: It was decided that a 4028bis shall be created with a 
narrow scope based on todays presentation on real issues causing 
Failures. Editorial changes and wordsmithing is out of scope. This goes 
to mailing list for approval.

Some Comments made during the presentation of Christer’s slides

Ben: pointed to the fact that only Bug’s in RFC4028 sould be considered.

Not rewriting the draft is proposed only to solve the issues.

Roland: supporting the proposals made by the slides

Roman: Resolving the glare situation for UPDATE w/o SDP is not easy to 
be solved. As well as the glare situation UPDATE/INVITE. Pointed to the 
issue of multiple transactions with S-E negotiation. Would like to have 
only one draft to solve all issues.

Christer: started the discussion if we need a “bis” or “update” draft. 
If we do a “bis” we need a strong statement of the scope.

Ben: agrees on Christer statements.

Jean: Keep the scope firmly. Requirements draft. This we want to fix. Or 
is it better to catch this in Mailing list.

Ben: is not in favor for a requirements draft.

Gonzalo: ISEG do not really like requirements draft

Christer: Section will be there to describe the changes.

Paul: We do not need a requirements draft. Language in RFC is misleading 
and needs improvement on text.

Roman: limit the scope to the multiple negotiation S-E.

Ben: Same opinion. Ambiguous text which causes problems should be 
changed. All other not. Editorial and stylistic improvements should not 
in scope.

Roland: BIS effort would nice but other approach would be also OK. As 
long as we get an fast solution.

Jean: Bis approach will be taken but needs to be confirmed on the list.

---

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 09:32:35 -0600

Hi all,

Since I haven't heard any corrections/additions, I'll be posting the 
minutes to the proceedings.

Thanks!

Jean

On 11/8/18 4:31 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore