Subject: [sipcore] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4028bis-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:46:11 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Session Initiation Protocol Core WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Session Timers in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
        Authors         : Christer Holmberg
                          Steve Donovan
                          Jonathan Rosenberg
	Filename        : draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4028bis-01.txt
	Pages           : 26
	Date            : 2019-06-24

Abstract:
   This document defines an extension to the Session Initiation Protocol
   (SIP).  This extension allows for a periodic refresh of SIP sessions
   through a re-INVITE or UPDATE request.  The refresh allows both user
   agents and proxies to determine whether the SIP session is still
   active.  The extension defines two new header fields: Session-
   Expires, which conveys the lifetime of the session, and Min-SE, which
   conveys the minimum allowed value for the session timer.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4028bis/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4028bis-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4028bis-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4028bis-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 11:49:56 -0400

Somehow I never noticed the publication of the -00 of this.
Looking back, I now see that it was published and adopted as a wg draft 
back in December. But I don't see any discussion of it at all.

And looking at the diff between -01 and rfc4028 I don't see any changes 
that would explain why it is being issued. The only changes I see seem 
to be artifacts of reformatting it according to current conventions.

What is then intent in making this update?

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 6/24/19 3:46 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:03:44 -0400

> back in December. But I don't see any discussion of it at all.

Sorry. After further looking I did find some discussion. But it was all 
procedural. No mention of *why* that I could see.

> What is then intent in making this update?

This is still the question.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 11:33:58 -0500

Hi Paul,

Given the draft name changes, it is hard to follow what happened if you 
are searching through mailarchive (When neither email subjects nor 
bodies contain full draft names, mailarchive can't pull them up.)

On 6/24/19 11:03 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> Looking back, I now see that it was published and adopted as a wg 
>> draft back in December. But I don't see any discussion of it at all.

The adoption discussion was originally for 
draft-holmberg-sipcore-sessiontimer-race: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/f0OPMCcrWWil7w2CeHVP-ywwyaU

That draft became draft-ietf-sipcore-sessiontimer-race.

> procedural. No mention of *why* that I could see.

Then at IETF 103, it was discussed that perhaps a bis of 4028 would be 
better: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/ubJIdvR76g3_i9dcwsxFEQLdawk

And that was followed up with a call to replace 
draft-ietf-sipcore-sessiontimer-race with 4028bis: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/6J41DcyYfdTG9ZvwAtms1lhFc74

> 
>> And looking at the diff between -01 and rfc4028 I don't see any 
>> changes that would explain why it is being issued. The only changes I 
>> see seem to be artifacts of reformatting it according to current 
>> conventions.

draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4028bis-00 was just a formatting update while 
waiting for responses from RFC 4028 co-authors to see if they wanted to 
remain as co-authors of the bis draft (discussion occurred off-list).

Then the draft just expired.

Thanks!

Jean

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:38:46 +0000

Hi,

Sorry, I forgot to send the follow-up e-mail after submitting the -01 version.

There are no changes in the -01 version. It was submitted due to expiration of the previous version.

I intend to put back my focus on this draft after the summer vaction.

Regards,

Christer

On 24/06/2019, 18.50, "sipcore on behalf of Paul Kyzivat" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    
    
    	Thanks,
    	Paul

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:35:46 -0400

> I intend to put back my focus on this draft after the summer vaction.

Ah. So this is *intended* to be functionally equivalent to RFC4028, and 
a starting point for the revisions to come. OK.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 18:39:52 +0000

Hi,

> a starting point for the revisions to come. OK.

Correct.

Regards,

Christer