SIP Extension Changes Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft IETF 52.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Re-INVITE Handling draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00.txt
Advertisements

SIP, Presence and Instant Messaging
SIP, Firewalls and NATs Oh My!. SIP Summit SIP, Firewalls and NATs, Oh My! Getting SIP Through Firewalls Firewalls Typically.
Presence, Security and Privacy. VON The Current Environment Many Faces of Security Authentication Verify someone is who they.
Presence and IM as SIP Services Jonathan Rosenberg Chief Scientist.
SIP and Instant Messaging. SIP Summit SIP and Instant Messaging What Does Presence Have to Do With SIP? How to Deliver.
Fall IM 2000 Introduction to SIP Jonathan Rosenberg Chief Scientist.
SIMPLE Open Issues Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft IETF 52.
IM May 24, 2000 Introduction to SIP Jonathan Rosenberg Chief Scientist.
STUN Open Issues Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft. Changes since -00 Answered UNSAF considerations –Still awaiting response from Leslie on whether they.
U N L E A S H I N G A S E R V I C E S R E N A I S S A N C E SIP SIP Security Jonathan Rosenberg Chief Scientist.
Internet Telecom Expo September 20, 2000 SIP vs. H.323 SIP vs. H.323 Will the Real IP Telephony Please Stand Up? Jonathan Rosenberg.
VON Europe /19/00 SIP and the Future of VON Protocols SIP and the Future of VON Protocols: Presence and IM Jonathan Rosenberg.
Fall VoN 2000 SIP for IP Communications Jonathan Rosenberg Chief Scientist.
Open Issues in bis 12/6/2001 5:28 PM Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Early Media Authorization Under what conditions should negotiated media flow prior to 200 OK (INVITE)? Richard Ejzak.
SIP Working Group Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Session-Independent Policies draft-ietf-sipping-session-indep-policy-01 Volker Hilt Gonzalo Camarillo
SIP Working Group Stuff Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) By: Zhixin Chen.
A Generic Event Notification System Using XML and SIP Knarig Arabshian and Henning Schulzrinne Department of Computer Science Columbia University
ICE Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft. Issue 1: Port Restricted Flow This case does not work well with ICE right now Race condition –Works if message 13.
SIP, NAT, Firewall SIP NAT Firewall How to Traversal NAT/Firewall for SIP.
SIP, Session Initiation Protocol Internet Draft, IETF, RFC 2543.
An Introduction to SIP Moshe Sambol Services Research Lab November 18, 1998.
Internet Telephony Helen J. Wang Network Reading Group, Jan 27, 99 Acknowledgement: Jimmy, Bhaskar.
SIP Session Initiation Protocol Short Introduction Artur Hecker, ENST.
GRUU Mechanism Jonathan Rosenberg. Status Draft-rosenberg-sipping-gruu-reqs-01 defines the problem Draft-rosenberg-sip-gruu submitted with proposed solution.
July 30, 2010SIPREC WG1 SIP Call Control - Recording Extensions draft-johnston-siprec-cc-rec-00 Alan Johnston Andrew Hutton.
Early Media in SIP: Problem Statement, Requirements, and Analysis of Solutions draft-barnes-sip-em-ps-req-sol Richard Barnes BBN Technologies IETF 68,
July 10, 2006rtpsec BOF IETF-661 Best Effort SRTP Phil Zimmermann Alan Johnston.
NAT Traversal Speaker: Chin-Chang Chang Date:
All rights reserved © 1999, Alcatel, Paris. page n° 1 SIP for Xcast SIP for the establishment of xcast-based multiparty.
1 © NOKIA 1999 FILENAMs.PPT/ DATE / NN SIP Service Architecture Markus Isomäki Nokia Research Center.
1 NAT & RTP Proxy Date: 2009/7/2 Speaker: Ni-Ya Li Advisor: Quincy Wu.
SIPPING IETF 57 Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
VoN September ‘98 1 9/17/98 VoN Standards Update Jonathan Rosenberg Bell Laboratories September 17, 1998.
Omar A. Abouabdalla Network Research Group (USM) SIP – Functionality and Structure of the Protocol SIP – Functionality and Structure of the Protocol By.
Security, NATs and Firewalls Ingate Systems. Basics of SIP Security.
SIP working group IETF#70 Essential corrections Keith Drage.
The User Registered UA URL draft-xu-sipping-uruu-01.txt Peili Xu
SIP Call Package Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft. Three Separate Pieces Call Leg State Package Conference Package To-Join/To-Replace.
August 2005IETF 63 - SIPPING Specifying Media Privacy Requirements in SIP Ron Shacham Henning Schulzrinne Dept. of Computer.
Making SIP NAT Friendly Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
SIP WG Open Issues IETF 50 Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Interactive Connectivity Establishment : ICE
March 22th, 2001 MMUSIC WG meeting 50th IETF MMUSIC WG meeting The fid attribute draft-ietf-mmusic-fid-00.txt
Open issues from SIP list Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
SIP PUBLISH Method Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
GRUU Jonathan Rosenberg Cisco Systems. Changes in -06 Editorial as a result of RFC-ED early copy experiment.
SIP Events: Changes and Open Issues IETF 50 / SIP Working Group Adam Roach
Caller Preferences Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
SIPWG Slides for IETF 51 Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
1 End-to-middle Security in SIP Kumiko Ono NTT Corporation March 1, 2004 draft-ietf-sipping-e2m-sec-reqs-01.txt draft-ono-sipping-end2middle-security-01.txt.
Andrew Allen ROUTING OUT OF DIALOG REQUESTS draft-allen-dispatch-routing-out-of-dialog-request-01 Dispatch IETF 92 March 23 rd 2015.
SIP wg Items Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft Caller Preferences: Changes Discussion of Redirects –Previous draft only proxy –Nothing different for redirect.
End-to-middle Security in SIP
IP Telephony (VoIP).
SIP over MANETs Introduction to SIP SIP vs MANETs Open Issues
Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft
draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-00 Ben Campbell
Session Initiation Protocol
App Interaction Framework
Request-URI Param Delivery
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft
Requirements and Implementation Options for the Multiple Line Appearance Feature using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) draft-johnston-bliss-mla-req-00.
NAT Traversal for VoIP Dr. Quincy Wu National Chi Nan University
Running SIP behind NAT Dr. Christian Stredicke, snom technology AG
Simulation of Session Initiation Protocol
Presentation transcript:

SIP Extension Changes Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft IETF 52

Caller Preferences Accept-Contact now has OR-OF-ANDS construct –Accept-Contact: *;language=“en&es,de” –Negation still applies to entire construct Its use is not terribly clear –Use, instead of | for backwards compatibility Some oddities –Accept-Contact and Contact share syntax definition, BUT Contact is restricted, but not through BNF Meaning of comma is “OR” for A-C and AND for Contact Code was updated and verified

Caller Preferences Proxy can compute an “implicit” Accept- Contact –Users register support for different media types –Incoming request has SDP for a particular type –Proxy computes A-C Proxy UA REGISTER REGISTER INV M=audio Implicit Accept-Contact: *;media=“audio/*”

Caller Preferences Clarified: only one instance of each param (I.e., only one media=“”) Align only=true syntax with others in LWS Clarified only=true usage Caller prefs need to be in ACK/CANCEL if they were in INVITE Caller prefs useful primarily for unrouted requests –Interaction with routing process specified Updated cancel feature to be consistent with bis-05 defaults Camel case function names in code

Changes to guidelines Alignment with draft-tsvarea-sipchange –This doc provides the technical details of the requirements there How sipping should decide if a problem is right for SIP How SIP authors should write protocols

Changes to sip-nat Registrar should use rport and received from bottom Via, not source –Allows for proxies between UA and registrar Have to place Translate in 200 OK to REGISTER –Otherwise, no way to know which address is the translated one When maddr is also present in via, it takes precedence –Rport and received are ignored Open Issues –Translate syntax cludgey –Can eliminate if we can solve the multi-proxy issue another way

Multi-Proxy Problem Alternate soln –Open TCP to server –Send OPTIONS w/ rport –Response Via has rport and received – got your address! –REGISTER using that address Problem –Need to get incoming calls through THAT proxy Client Proxy REGISTER INV

Early Media Discussion Do we want to solve this problem? –If yes, needs to get on some charter somewhere What are the requirements –Backwards compatible? –INVITE response reflects actual call status Important for services –Callee has to offer early media –Callee should only offer early media if caller supports –Caller can reject offer –Caller can respond to offer with new codecs/ports –Caller can hold early media –Caller can change ports/codecs for early media –In forking, multiple UAS can offer early media –UAC can accept/reject each early media stream –Smooth transition from early to final media Shouldn’t require port change, for example –Solving media clipping is a different problem –Soln not PSTN specific –Preserves O/A model in INV/200/ACK –Allow for indication of local alerting or in-band early media

Early Media Requirements –Can have separate early media stream from final stream OK to correlate and be different UAS –Allow for preconditions on early media –Backwards compatibility with proxies that do midcom –Simple (MAAP) –Should use response codes for final responses rather than inband media Others??

Solution Axes Do we use O/A How to send EM offer from UAS How to send EM answer from UAC O/A mapping for having UAS update EM O/A mapping for having UAC update EM