IMSX Protocol Evaluation for Session Based IM draft-barnes-simple-imsx-prot-eval-00.txt Mary Barnes IETF 54 SIMPLE WG.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SIP and Instant Messaging. SIP Summit SIP and Instant Messaging What Does Presence Have to Do With SIP? How to Deliver.
Advertisements

Communication Service Identifier Requirements on SIP draft-loreto-3gpp-ics-requirements.txt
Slide # 1 SIMPLE Interim May 2004MSRP Hop-by-hop Mechanism MSRP Hop-by-Hop Mechanism SIMPLE WG Interim Meeting May 24th, 2004, Bedford MA draft-levin-simple-msrp-review-00.
Applicability of Instant Messaging in the Military Command and Control Systems Author: Juha Vermaja Superviser: Jorma Jormakka Instructor: Marko Luoma,
Why to learn OSI reference Model? The answer is too simple that It tells us that how communication takes place between computers on internet but how??
July 20, 2000H.323/SIP1 Interworking Between SIP/SDP and H.323 Agenda Compare SIP/H.323 Problems in interworking Possible solutions Conclusion Q/A Kundan.
Security in VoIP Networks Juan C Pelaez Florida Atlantic University Security in VoIP Networks Juan C Pelaez Florida Atlantic University.
Remote Call/Device Control IETF82, Dispatch WG, Taipei November 15, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef Cullen Jennings Alan Johnston.
SIMPLE WG IETF-68 Meeting Centralized Conferencing (XCON) using the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) draft-boulton-xcon-msrp-conferencing-04 Editors:
Downgrade Design Team Discussion Results IETF 77 DDT.
H. 323 and firewalls: Problem Statement and Solution Framework Author: Melinda Shore, Nokia Presenter: Shannon McCracken.
Telematics group University of Göttingen, Germany Overhead and Performance Study of the General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST) Protocol Xiaoming.
RTSP NAT Traversal Update Magnus Westlund (Ericsson) Thomas Zeng (PVNS, an Alcatel company) IETF-60 MMUSIC WG draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-03.txt.
SIP, NAT, Firewall SIP NAT Firewall How to Traversal NAT/Firewall for SIP.
Circuit & Application Level Gateways CS-431 Dick Steflik.
Secure Telephony Enabled Middle-box (STEM) Maggie Nguyen Dr. Mark Stamp SJSU - CS 265 Spring 2003 STEM is proposed as a solution to network vulnerabilities,
Session Policy Framework using EAP draft-mccann-session-policy-framework-using-eap-00.doc IETF 76 – Hiroshima Stephen McCann, Mike Montemurro.
Request History – Solution Mary Barnes SIP WG Meeting IETF-57 draft-ietf-sip-history-info-00.txt.
A Brief Taxonomy of Firewalls
P2PSIP Charter Proposal Many people helped write this charter…
Jaringan Komputer Dasar OSI Transport Layer Aurelio Rahmadian.
I-D: draft-rahman-mipshop-mih-transport-01.txt Transport of Media Independent Handover Messages Over IP 67 th IETF Annual Meeting MIPSHOP Working Group.
Update on the Internet Research Task Force Aaron Falk IRTF Chair IETF-72 – Dublin.
FIREWALLS Vivek Srinivasan. Contents Introduction Need for firewalls Different types of firewalls Conclusion.
1 Proposal for BENCHMARKING SIP NETWORKING DEVICES draft-poretsky-sip-bench-term-01.txt draft-poretsky-sip-bench-meth-00.txt Co-authors are Scott Poretsky.
Improving the Routing Efficiency of SIP Instant Message SIP 即時傳訊之繞送效能研究 adviser : Quincy Wu speaker : Wenping Zhang date :
SIPREC Conference Recording (draft-kyzivat-siprec-conference-use-cases-01) IETF 89, March 7, 2014 Authors: Michael Yan, Paul Kyzivat, Simon Romano.
Larry Amiot Northwestern University Internet2 Commons Site Coordinator Training September 27, 2004 Austin, Texas Introduction to.
XCON WG IETF-73 Meeting Instant Messaging Sessions with a Centralized Conferencing (XCON) System draft-boulton-xcon-session-chat-02 Authors: Chris Boulton.
PPSP NAT traversal Lichun Li, Jun Wang, Wei Chen {li.lichun1, draft-li-ppsp-nat-traversal-02.
SIP Performance Benchmarking draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-02 draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-02 July 24, 2010 Prof. Carol Davids, Illinois Inst. of Tech.
©Brooks/Cole, 2003 Model and protocol  A model is the specification set by a standards organization as a guideline for designing networks.  A protocol.
IETF65 DIME WG V. Fajardo, A. McNamee, J. Bournelle and H. Tschofenig Diameter Inter Operability Test Suites (draft-fajardo-dime-interop-test-suite-00.txt)
Slide title In CAPITALS 50 pt Slide subtitle 32 pt RTSP 2.0 TLS handling Magnus Westerlund draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-12.
William Stallings Data and Computer Communications
Security, NATs and Firewalls Ingate Systems. Basics of SIP Security.
What is SIGTRAN?. SIGTRAN Signaling Transport (SIGTRAN) is an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standard for transporting Public-Switched Telephone.
5 Firewalls in VoIP Selected Topics in Information Security – Bazara Barry.
IETF67 DIME WG Towards the specification of a Diameter Resource Control Application Dong Sun IETF 67, San Diego, Nov 2006 draft-sun-dime-diameter-resource-control-requirements-00.txt.
Some use cases and requirements for handover Information Services Greg Daley MIPSHOP Session IETF 64.
RTCWEB Considerations for NATs, Firewalls and HTTP proxies draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall- considerations A. Hutton, T. Stach, J. Uberti.
SOCKS By BITSnBYTES (Bhargavi, Maya, Priya, Rajini and Shruti)
SIP Performance Benchmarking draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-01 draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-01 March 22, 2010 Prof. Carol Davids, Illinois Inst. of Tech.
Page 1 IETF Speermint Working Group Speermint Requirements/Guidelines for SIP session peering draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-02 IETF 69 - Monday July.
Magnus Westerlund 1 The RTSP Core specification draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-06.txt Magnus Westerlund Aravind Narasimhan Rob Lanphier Anup Rao Henning.
File Transfer Services in the Context of SIP Based Communication Markus Isomäki draft-isomaki-sipping-file-transfer-00.
Teacher:Quincy Wu Presented by: Ying-Neng Hseih
A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol User Agent Profile Delivery (draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-11) SIPPING – IETF 68 Mar 19, 2007 Sumanth.
MIG – MIGration of Communication Services to SIP A Proposed BoF for IETF67 San Diego.
Speechsc Protocol Proposal Sarvi Shanmugham Cisco Systems Inc. shanmugham-speechsc-00.txt.
User Application Control (Keypress Events) SIPPING WG - IETF 53 Robert Fairlie-Cuninghame, Bert Culpepper, Jean-François Mulé.
K. Salah1 Security Protocols in the Internet IPSec.
SIPREC Conference Recording (draft-kyzivat-siprec-conference-use-cases-00) IETF 87, November 4, 2013 Authors: Michael Yan, Paul Kyzivat, Simon Romano.
DOTS Requirements Andrew Mortensen November 2015 IETF 94 1.
Guidelines for IPFIX Implementations on Middleboxes Juergen Quittek, Martin Stiemerling 59th IETF meeting, IPFIX WG.
Firewall Issues Research Group First meeting yesterday, GGF 14 Mailing list: Projects page:
SIPPING Working Group IETF 67 Mary Barnes Gonzalo Camarillo.
XCON WG IETF-64 Meeting Centralized Conferencing (XCON) using the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) draft-boulton-xcon-msrp-conferencing-02 Editors:
1Security for Service Providers – Dave Gladwin – Newport Networks – SIP ’04 – 22-Jan-04 Security for Service Providers Protecting Service Infrastructure.
Jim McEachern Senior Technology Consultant ATIS July 8, 2015.
Chapter 2 Network Models
CompTIA Security+ Study Guide (SY0-401)
WebRTC enabled multimedia conferencing and collaboration solution
MIG – MIGration of Communication Services to SIP
L1VPN Working Group Scope
CompTIA Security+ Study Guide (SY0-401)
Multi-server Namespace in NFSv4.x Previous and Pending Updates
User to User Key Signaling Protocols
Internet Connection Sharing
Presentation transcript:

IMSX Protocol Evaluation for Session Based IM draft-barnes-simple-imsx-prot-eval-00.txt Mary Barnes IETF 54 SIMPLE WG

July 17th, draft-barnes-simple-imsx-prot-eval-00.txt Overview  Overview of analysis  General conclusions  Other Disadvantage/Advantages of IMSX  Related mailing list discussions

July 17th, draft-barnes-simple-imsx-prot-eval-00.txt Overview of analysis  Evaluates the suitability of the IMSX protocol as a transport for Session Based IM.  IMSX (draft-mrose-simple-exchange-01) defines a BEEP (RFC 3080) profile for exchanging CPIM messages after SIP has performed its session setup signaling.  Compares IMSX against the IMPP requirements (RFC 2779).  Compares the ability for IMSX to interoperate with other IM systems based upon the CPIM profile (draft-ietf- impp-cpim-02).  Discusses IMSX with regards to the Guidelines for Instant Message Sessions (draft-mankin-im-session- guide-00).

July 17th, draft-barnes-simple-imsx-prot-eval-00.txt General Conclusions  IMSX meets the majority of the CPIM requirements with the exception of the Network topology requirements, which were beyond the scope of the original design intent of BEEP:  Middlebox traversal (NATs and FIREWALLS) for IMSX is a requirement that is currently not specifically addressed by BEEP. However, it is deemed equivalent to and addressed by the same mechanism which would be used for TCP based SIP media.  IMSX does not address the proxy or relay requirements for support of IM. However, a solution to this requirement is not beyond the scope of BEEP.  Related to these requirements, as evaluated against the IM Session Guidelines, the IMSX/BEEP IM Session solution does not fully address intermediaries.

July 17th, draft-barnes-simple-imsx-prot-eval-00.txt Additional Disadvantages of IMSX  Beyond the identified requirements, which are not fully met, additional disadvantages of IMSX as the Session IM protocol are:  BEEP does not currently support threading.  Requires the development and support of a new protocol for most existing SIP implementations.

July 17th, draft-barnes-simple-imsx-prot-eval-00.txt Additional Advantages of IMSX  A user can use a single TCP connection for multiple IM Session connections to the same user.  Several channels may be multiplexed over the same TCP connection having different characteristics.  For this model of a single TCP connection, interleaving provides a fair share of the use of connection to support the multiple types of media.

July 17th, draft-barnes-simple-imsx-prot-eval-00.txt Mailing List Discussion on IMSX/BEEP  One Pro IMSX/BEEP posting: “I personally lean towards the mrose approach. BEEP does a decent job of the message delivery operation. It allows standardized relay elements to be added as needed and provides for a sort of path-discovery that would appear to be beneficial in firewall traversal scenarios. It provides a nice layering distinction between "can I talk to you" and "may I talk to the network".”  One Con IMSX/BEEP posting:  “have to administer two very different types of devices, with different (and, in the case of mrose, undefined) network management.”  Doesn’t see the advantages to mrose wrt "standardized relay elements to be added as needed". What can be added there that can't be added in simple-message?  One proposal to progress IMSX as informational, with message-session being the WG document (standards track).