1 / 5

Volker Hilt volkerh@bell-labs Co-Authors: Jonathan Rosenberg, Gonzalo Camarillo

SIP Session Policies draft-hilt-sipping-session-indep-policy-00 draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy-00. Volker Hilt volkerh@bell-labs.com Co-Authors: Jonathan Rosenberg, Gonzalo Camarillo. Session-Independent Policies - Issues. Who provides policies for which scope?

bernie
Download Presentation

Volker Hilt volkerh@bell-labs Co-Authors: Jonathan Rosenberg, Gonzalo Camarillo

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SIP Session Policiesdraft-hilt-sipping-session-indep-policy-00draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy-00 Volker Hilt volkerh@bell-labs.com Co-Authors: Jonathan Rosenberg, Gonzalo Camarillo

  2. Session-Independent Policies - Issues • Who provides policies for which scope? • Home network for AOR. • Local network for AOR. • Local network for devices. • Can the event package of the Profile Delivery Framework be used? • Selective subscription to policy packages. • Support different policy packages (XML/text-based).

  3. How to Proceed? • Use Profile Delivery Framework? • Add support for multiple packages and local network AOR subscriptions. • Keep XML policy format? • Use within Profile Delivery framework. • WG-Item?

  4. Session-Specific Policies – Models • Piggyback model (current draft). • Proxies insert policies into INVITE transaction. • Policy MFOs are inserted in the message containing the SDP. • Preconditions used to avoid “ghost rings” if UAC CANCELs because of policies. • Pro’s: call setup delay independent of number of proxies; small number of messages. • Con’s: policies traverse entire network (encryption to hide them). • Re-direct model. • Proxies use INVITE transaction to tell UAs to retrieve policies. • UAC: proxy rejects INVITE and provides policy URI. • UAS: proxy inserts policy URI in INVITE. • UAs submit MIOs to policy server and retrieve policies. • Pro’s: policies for local UAs stay in local network; reuse session-independent mechanisms. • Con’s: reject cascade with multiple proxies; increased setup delay.

  5. Open Issues • Which model (redirect vs. piggybacking)? • User approval needed for policies? • Automated decisions by UA may simplify flows. • Encryption of MIOs and MFOs? • Align with e2m and sec-inserted drafts.

More Related