Requirements from Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Border Control (SBC) Deployments
draft-ietf-sipping-sbc-funcs-09
Yes
(Jon Peterson)
(Robert Sparks)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
(was Yes, No Objection, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-04-09)
Unknown
Section 3.3.1 - might want a reference for history and diversion Section 3.3.2 - first sentence is hard for me to understand
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-04-10)
Unknown
Section 3.2.1: Additionally, traffic management can be used to implement intercept capabilities where required to support audit or legal obligations. I am not aware of legal requirements to implement intercept functions by network operators that are not parties in the communication or setup of the communication for other reasons already. There are requirements for intercepting Internet communications by ISPs, but this interception is to be done at the level of they provide service. For instance, if they merely act as a DSL provider they would be able to store/inspect IP traffic. Similarly, an operator that provides voice service might have a legal requirement to provide interception capabilities. Traffic management as defined in your document is one way of doing this. However, in this case the operator would already have SIP proxies in their network that can act as B2BUAs and perform traffic management. So the introduction of additional devices to do this may not be justified. Some discussion of the above nuances would be useful in the document. Section 3.3.1: For example, user- agents on networks which implement SIP differently (for example 3GPP or SIP [1] network etc) Is the issue really that they implement SIP differently, or that they require differing sets of extensions? Perhaps this needs to be written in a way similar to the previous sentence which said "SBCs fixing capability mismatches enable communications between user-agents with different capabilities or extensions." Or simply say "For example, connecting to a 3GPP network via a plain SIP phone." Section 3.4.1: SBCs' NAT traversal function is required in scenarios where the NAT is outside the SBC I have a hard time imagining networks where this arrangement exists. If my Linksys router had an SBC function and it fixed the lack of NAT traversal support in my SIP client, that would be one. But somehow I suspect that I would get an upgrade to my client software sooner than an upgrade to the router.
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-04-09)
Unknown
Suggestions for editorial improvements/clarifications: Section 2.1: I read the first paragraph while looking at Figure 2, and was very confused. Does this section describe two different cases, one without SBC and one with SBC? If so, having two figures as well would help. If not, figure and text should use consistent names for the network elements (e.g., which of these is the "originating gateway" etc.). Section 2.1, Figure 2: explain acronym SSB Section 4, s/exiting/existing/
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-04-07)
Unknown
Section 3.4.2 says: > > There is also a problem related to the method how SBCs choose the > value for the validity of a registration period. This value should > be as high as possible, but it still needs to be low enough to > maintain the NAT binding. Typically SBCs do not have any > deterministic method for choosing a suitable value. However, SBCs > can just use a sub-optimal, relatively small value which usually > works. > This text begs for an additional sentence. Please provide an example of "a sub-optimal, relatively small value which usually works". Section 3.1.3: s/beeing/being/
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-04-10)
Unknown
This is a rather nice document I very much appreciate the clear and consistent organization. A few minor issues: (1) Section 3.5, Access Control This section seems to have multiple definitions of "access control". The opening sentence focuses on controlling "what kind of signaling and media traffic their network carries" but the closing sentence of the same paragraph talks about access control based on "link-layer identifiers, IP addresses or SIP identities". The implications of these two definitions are very different, imho. As a result, the requirements and issues presented in 3.5 are somewhat confusing. The example only addresses one aspect of the problem, as well. I suggest revising 3.5 to more clearly explain why these two definitions of access control are related, or breaking this into two sections each devoted to one problem. (2) Section 3.5 would also benefit from more detail regarding the range of policies that need to be expressed and enforced by an SBC. The references to policies and policy servers need detail. editorial nits: Section 3.1.3 s/identity of subscribers in beeing hidden/identity of subscribers is hidden/ Section 4 s/exiting/existing/