SIP Session-ID draft-kaplan-sip-session-id-02 Hadriel Kaplan.

Slides:



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

SIP Secure Call-ID draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00 Hadriel Kaplan.
MARTINI WG Interim draft-kaplan-martini-with-olive-00 Hadriel Kaplan.
1 © 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Location Conveyance in SIP draft-ietf-sipping-location-requirements-02.
SIPPING 3GPP Requirements Ad Hoc Meeting Georg Mayer IETF#53, Minneapolis.
Indication of support for keep- alive draft-holmberg-sip-keep-03 Christer Holmberg
SIP Interconnect Guidelines draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-02 David Hancock, Daryl Malas.
IETF 71 SIPPING WG meeting draft-ietf-sipping-pai-update-00.
Early Media Authorization Under what conditions should negotiated media flow prior to 200 OK (INVITE)? Richard Ejzak.
SIP Working Group Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
SIP issues with S/MIME and CMS Rohan Mahy SIP, SIPPING co-chair.
Service Identification Jonathan Rosenberg Cisco. Agenda Service Identification Architecture draft (draft-rosenberg-sipping-service- identification) Media.
Remote Call/Device Control IETF82, Dispatch WG, Taipei November 15, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef Cullen Jennings Alan Johnston.
IETF 91 DISPATCH draft-jesske-dispatch-forking- answer-correlation-02 Roland Jesske.
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF) Vijay K. Gurbani Bell Laboratories/Alcatel-Lucent 75 th IETF, Stockholm, Sweden July 26-31, 2009.
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.
Proposed Fix to HERFP* (Heterogeneous Error Response Forking Problem) Rohan Mahy * for INVITE transactions.
Proxy Authentication of the Emergency Status of SIP Calls draft-barnes-ecrit-auth-00 Richard Barnes IETF 69, Chicago, IL, USA.
Session-ID Requirements for IETF84 draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-00 1 August 2012 Paul Jones, Gonzalo Salgueiro, James Polk, Laura Liess, Hadriel.
Early Media in SIP: Problem Statement, Requirements, and Analysis of Solutions draft-barnes-sip-em-ps-req-sol Richard Barnes BBN Technologies IETF 68,
1 SIP WG meeting 73rd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA November, 2008 Return Routability Check draft-kuthan-sip-derive-00 Jiri
Request History – Solution Mary Barnes SIP WG Meeting IETF-57 draft-ietf-sip-history-info-00.txt.
Explicit Subscriptions for REFER draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-00 SIPCORE – IETF90 Robert Sparks.
(Business) Process Centric Exchanges
Authentication Mechanism for Port Control Protocol (PCP) draft-wasserman-pcp-authentication-01.txt Margaret Wasserman Sam Hartman Painless Security Dacheng.
Presented By Team Netgeeks SIP Session Initiation Protocol.
1 IETF 72 SIP WG meeting SIP Identity issues John Elwell et alia.
SIP INFO Event Framework (draft-kaplan-sip-info-events-00) Hadriel Kaplan Christer Holmberg 70th IETF, Vancouver, Canada.
SIP working group IETF#70 Essential corrections Keith Drage.
STIR In-Band Signature Transport draft-kaplan-stir-ikes-out-00 Hadriel Kaplan.
Real-Time Streaming Protocol draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-01.txt Magnus Westerlund.
SIP PUBLISH Method Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
- 1 -P. Kyzivatdraft-sipping-gruu-reg-event-00 Reg Event Package Extensions draft-sipping-gruu-reg-event-00 IETF64 Nov-2005.
RFC3261 (Almost) Robert Sparks. SIPiT 10 2 Status of the New SIP RFC Passed IETF Last Call In the RFC Editor queue Author’s 48 hours review imminent IMPORTANT:
1 © 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. VVT _05_2001_c1 Resource Priority Header draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-05 James M Polk Henning.
Name that User John Elwell Cullen Jennings Venkatesh Venkataramanan
1 SIPREC Recording Metadata format (draft-ram-siprec-metadata-format- 00) Jan 25-26th SIPREC INTERIM MEETING R Parthasarathi On behalf of the team Team:
1 RFC4028 Session Timer in the Session Initiation Protocol Speaker : Ying Shun Lin Adviser : Quincy Wu.
Connected Party ID (considered evil) Who I’m Talking To Cullen Jennings
March 20, 2007BLISS BOF IETF-681 Requirements and Implementation Options for the Multiple Line Appearance Feature using the Session Initiation Protocol.
GRUU Jonathan Rosenberg Cisco Systems. Changes in -06 Editorial as a result of RFC-ED early copy experiment.
July 28, 2008BLISS WG IETF-721 The Multiple Appearance Feature using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) draft-johnston-bliss-mla-req-02 Alan Johnston.
Slide title In CAPITALS 50 pt Slide subtitle 32 pt RTSP draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2396bis-10 Magnus Westerlund Co-auhtors: Henning Schulzrinne, Rob Lanphier,
Source Level Debugging of Parallel Programs Roland Wismüller LRR-TUM, TU München Germany.
MSRP Again! draft-ietf-simple-message- session-09.
Call Completion using BFCP draft-roach-sipping-callcomp-bfcp IETF 67 – San Diego November 7, 2006.
Indication of Terminated Dialog draft-holmberg-sipping txt Christer Holmberg NomadicLab Ericsson.
Location Conveyance in SIP draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-01 James M. Polk Brian Rosen 2 nd Aug 05.
March 20th, 2001 SIP WG meeting 50th IETF SIP WG meeting Overlap signalling handling
SIPPING Drafts Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft. Conferencing Package Issues Only one – scope Depends on broader work in conferencing May include –Participant.
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.
Session-ID Requirements for Interim-3 draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-00 Paul Jones, Gonzalo Salgueiro, James Polk, Laura Liess, Hadriel Kaplan.
Andrew Allen ROUTING OUT OF DIALOG REQUESTS draft-allen-dispatch-routing-out-of-dialog-request-01 Dispatch IETF 92 March 23 rd 2015.
Session-ID Requirements at IETF83 draft-jones-ipmc-session-id-reqts-01 Paul Jones, Gonzalo Salgueiro, James Polk, Laura Liess, Parthasarathi Ravindran,
SIP wg Items Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft Caller Preferences: Changes Discussion of Redirects –Previous draft only proxy –Nothing different for redirect.
SESSION-ID Backward COMPATIBILITY
Volker Hilt SIP Session Policies Volker Hilt
Session-Independent Policies draft-ietf-sipping-session-indep-policy-02 Volker Hilt Jonathan Rosenberg Gonzalo.
End-to-middle Security in SIP
Request History Capability – Requirements & Solution
ECRIT Interim: SIP Location Conveyance
Kumiko Ono End-to-middle Security in SIP draft-ietf-sipping-e2m-sec-reqs-04 draft-ono-sipping-end2middle-security-03 Kumiko Ono.
draft-ietf-simple-message-session-09
Examining Session Policy Topologies
Request-URI Param Delivery
Session-ID Requirements at IETF83
SIP Authentication using CHAP-Password
INSIPID Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for logging and debugging (draft-kaithal-dispatch-sip-log-information-00 ) March 26th 2012 IETF -83.
SIP Session Timer Glare Handling
Presentation transcript:

SIP Session-ID draft-kaplan-sip-session-id-02 Hadriel Kaplan

Q&A 1.How is this different from secure-call-id, or why do we need this if we do secure-call-id? Secure-call-id only tries to keep Call-ID consistent across SBCs or B2BUAs which change it for security properties Tons of B2BUAs change Call-IDs 2.But there exists [insert-whacky-scenario-here] which wont work for this Thats ok, Im not trying to boil the ocean 3.There are B2BUAs which remove headers they dont know about Yes, I know, and thats ok – if this is useful, their customers will make them support it; if not, then not 4.There are lots of UAs that wont support generating this for a long time if ever, so this wont happen Thats ok, a proxy and B2BUA can generate it 5.SBCs are evil and will remove this thing just to spite us No, SBCs do what their owners want them to do – if we dont give them a reason to remove it (and give them a reason to keep it), this will be ok

The Problem We need a way for monitoring/debugging tools to follow a dialog across SIP elements and domains But B2BUAs change the Call-ID –a LOT of B2BUAs, far more than SBCs Why? –Security: addressed by secure-call-id –Other reasons: addressed by this draft

The Requirements 1.It must be possible to pass the identifier through B2BUAs, with as high a probability as possible 2.The identifier must not reveal any identity information of any type 3.The identifier must not reveal the Call-ID/tags changed to someone getting the identifier, as much as possible This last one is in slight conflict with Req 2, but I think its ok

The Draft Solution Create a new, pseudo-random, fixed- length value Put it in a header: Session-ID Put that header in out-of-dialog requests Reflect it in responses and include in mid- dialog requests

The Plan 1.Publish the draft 2.Have B2BUAs insert it if UA doesnt 3.Update wireshark and monitoring tools to look for Session-ID to track calls 4.Profit

Diagrams UAC B2BUAUASB2BUA Call-ID: ABCCall-ID: DEFCall-ID: GHI Session-ID: 123 UAC B2BUAUAS Redir Server Call-ID: ABC Call-ID: DEF Call-ID: GHI Session-ID: 123

More Diagrams UAC B2BUAUASB2BUA Call-ID: ABCCall-ID: DEFCall-ID: GHI Session-ID: 123 UAC B2BUAUAS Redir Server Call-ID: ABC Call-ID: DEF Call-ID: GHI Session-ID: 123

When it doesnt work… UAC1 B2BUAUAS1 UAC2 Call-ID: ABC Call-ID: DEF Call-ID: GHI Session-ID: 123 Session-ID: 456 – this is a separate session REFER-to: DEF Note: this could work, if B2BUA and UAS1 supported Session-ID

How it could work… UAC1 B2BUAUAS1 UAC2 Call-ID: ABC Call-ID: DEF Call-ID: GHI Session-ID: 123 Session-ID: 123 REFER-to: DEF?Session-ID=123

When it doesnt work 2… UAC1 B2BUAUAS1 Call-ID: ABC Call-ID: DEF Session-ID: 123 UAS2 Session-ID: 456 B2BUAUAS1 Call-ID: ABC Call-ID: DEF Session-ID: 123 UAS2 Session-ID: 456 UAC1 sends REFER to B2BUA, which processes the REFER by tying the two dialogs together

Solving World Hunger We could try to make these non-working cases work, but… It adds complexity It may still not cover all cases –For example, B2BUA may not actually need to re-Invite either UAS in the last scenario It will take longer to document in an RFC Troubleshooting mechanisms need to be simple and easy to implement

Issues Not all devices will support Session-ID There will be some corner- cases/scenarios that wont work Thats life – we can only do what is possible given the constraints The point is were making it better This is not used for dialog matching, so failure to be used does not mean failure of message processing/state

Proposal Answer the question: Is there interest in this type of thing? Choose from options: 1.Send to DISPATCH, hold a BOF, then in 2010 form a WG, then in 2012/2013 publish an RFC 2.Ask ADs for a mail list and design team without WG 3.Do individual draft, direct to RFC-Editor 4.Fourth option??