Subject: [Simple] Draft Minutes from SIMPLE at IETF75

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:20:43 -0500

Please review. Send comments or corrections to the list and/or chairs  
ASAP.

Thanks!

Ben.
------

Minutes - SIMPLE IETF75 - Wednesday 29 July 2009 - Stockholm, Sweden

Summary:

Simple-Chat: We discussed whether this draft is still needed, given  
that it was intended to be a short-term solution until XCON was  
finished with similar work, and the XCON work is nearing completion.  
The sense of the room was that it was no longer needed, but consensus  
for this needs to be confirmed on the mailing list. Interested parties  
to meet after session to discuss logistics in the event the work group  
decides to shut down the effort.

Intra-Domain Bridging: No issues raised--draft to be last-called  
shortly after meeting.

MSRP-ACM: We closed a few COMEDIA related issues, but still have open  
issues related to the COMEDIA connection-reuse mechanism, connection  
routing, and legacy session matching. Discussion to continue on list.  
Interested parties to meet to try to find a path forward.

Raw notes by Dean Willis:
------------------------

Notes in SIMPLE IETF 75
Reported by Dean Willis

Chair Ben Campbell
Jabber scribe St. Peter

Note Well presented by chair

Agenda accepted as proposed

Status reviewed by chair.

Topic: simple-chat

Does OMA still need simple-chat? Gonzalo reports that they no longer
need it, having given up years ago and done it themselves. Discussion
suggested that we will be finishing the final solution about the same
time as the temporary.

MSRP and nicknames came up; offline discussion will be required to
settle out what todo. Involved parties are to meet after this session
and develop a plan. Noted that 10 other drafts reference this one; can
they be changed to reference the XCON draft instead?

Topic: Intra-Domain Bridging
led by Avshalom Houri
Slides presented

Issue: Role of Publish clarified in this version.

No issues noted with draft's revised text.

Issue: Distributed Policy Management

Draft recognizes and provides cautions on distributed policy
management isses.

Question: Are we ready for WGLC? No disagreement raised, chair will
schedule a last-call after this IETF.

Jean Francois Mule noted that there is some overlap between this
document and DRINKS work, but that the discussion of provisioning in
this document is too abstract to build something that works.

Jon Peterson noted that previous plans were to  refer the detailed
provisioning work to SPEERMINT.

Topic: Alternative Connection Model for MSRP
Led by Christer Holmberg
Slides presented

Issue: COMEDIA 1st Send

Proposed that active party sends SEND.

Noted by Hadriel that doc must be clear that even with this decision,
it might be possible that the active party receives a SEND, and it
shouldn t freak out.  This should be clarified in the document.

Noted by Ben that we should recheck RFC discussion about active party.

No parties spoke in opposition to this proposed solution.

Issue: COMEDIA client-relay TCP connection.

Proposed to retain current rules, establishment of client-relay
connection not affected by COMEDIA.

Ben asked if we could use guidance about active-passive
useage. Christer will investigate. No one spoke against the proposes
solution.

Issue: Connection reuse andrelays 1/3

No objections to proposed solution

Issue 2/3

No objections to proposed solution.

Issue 3/3

No proposed solution.

Three alternative presented. Adam argues against #1 (MSRP messaging
element). Adam thinks third alternative might work.

Discussion ensued.

Noted that there may be more than one rely on the path.

According to Jonathan Lennox, COMEDIA has this mechanism so that the
passive node can report a loss-of-connection to the active node.

Since SIP has retransmission, we may not need this COMEDIA behavior at
all.

Poll: Anybody planning on using COMEDIA for this? No one responded.

Ben proposes putting some call flows around this in the draft and has
an initial preference for Alt 3, but can see a possibility that we
might discover a need for Alt 2. Alt 1 is right out.

Issue: Connection/Routing C/M vs. a=path

Two alternatives offered in draft: Alt 1 is in this draft, alt 2 is in
MSRP.

Hadriel may recall some previous discussion around a need to do
further work even with alt 2. This may be aggrivated by v4-v6
migration and dual offers. Adam and Jonathan noted further
complexities related t multi-hop scenarios.

Much discussion ensued.

Noted that MSRP relays never see the SDP, so that info has to be in
MSRP somewhere.

No conclusion noted.

Issue: Legacy Session Matching

Proposal offered in slides. This would impact RFC 4975 in at least one
sport (Ben noted a second place). Noted that this change may be
dependent on conclusion to previous open issue.

Issue: SBC/ALG TLS Certificate Impact

Two proposals offered. Hadriel objects to both; Alt 1 will never clear
IESG. Alt 2 can be replaced with a note saying "this will fail if both
ends are active".

Discussion ensued.

Cullen noted that IESG will expect that B2BUAs terminate the TLS, so
Alt 1 is not as big a problem as Hadriel thinks.

No conclusion noted.

Chair asked interested parties to meet and resolve this week.