IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [martini] REMINDER: Ongoing MARTINI WG lastCall on"Registration for Multiple Phone Numbers in the SIP"

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Fri, 23 July 2010 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Original-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4E43A69CD for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.614
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.614 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LaEOKmD76gTM for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81CF3A692B for <martini@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:30:24 -0400
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:30:24 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: "bruno.chatras@orange-ftgroup.com" <bruno.chatras@orange-ftgroup.com>, "adam@nostrum.com" <adam@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:30:24 -0400
Thread-Topic: [martini] REMINDER: Ongoing MARTINI WG lastCall on"Registration for Multiple Phone Numbers in the SIP"
Thread-Index: AcsoIcTgTg+jMHVnTxyi6qCUI4QITgAAfBawAAYwBTAAGpPdsAB09bMw
Message-ID: <430FC6BDED356B4C8498F634416644A9258D7F4093@mail>
References: <BLU137-W168F37C34E4BA034704B8893BB0@phx.gbl><9ECCF01B52E7AB408A7EB8535264214101AEE888@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr><000001cb2758$9c977cd0$d5c67670$@us><A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAECBA4A08@MCHP058A.global-ad.net><B011440129B84B30978779D2BCA75D18@china.huawei.com><9ECCF01B52E7AB408A7EB8535264214101B1EBC5@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr><4C45C316.1090702@nostrum.com> <9ECCF01B52E7AB408A7EB8535264214101B1EC01@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> <430FC6BDED356B4C8498F634416644A9258D7F3A57@mail> <9ECCF01B52E7AB408A7EB8535264214101B1ECEF@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <9ECCF01B52E7AB408A7EB8535264214101B1ECEF@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "bernard_aboba@hotmail.com" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "martini@ietf.org" <martini@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [martini] REMINDER: Ongoing MARTINI WG lastCall on"Registration for Multiple Phone Numbers in the SIP"
X-BeenThere: martini@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of en-mass SIP PBX registration mechanisms <martini.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini>
List-Post: <mailto:martini@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:30:19 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bruno.chatras@orange-ftgroup.com [mailto:bruno.chatras@orange-
> ftgroup.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:36 AM
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan@acmepacket.com]
> > Envoyé : mardi 20 juillet 2010 20:56
> > If the PBX only registered a single contact, then the SSP
> > wouldn't be able to indicate two different target AoR domains
> > - but that's actually a GOOD thing, I think.  Either the PBX
> > knows about the two AoR domains, in which case it should have
> > registered for them separately;
> 
> ==>BC: Of course it can register them separately (especially if there are
> only two sub-domains) but why should we mandate this behavior while there
> are other more flexible solutions that do not have this constraint?

Because it follows 3261?  Because it keeps the request-uri as the identity and the address of the target, as opposed to just the identity but not the address?

Also, it's arguable which is more "flexible".  Having a separate REGISTER for each AoR domain allows the service provider to have separate registrars responsible for each domain, and invoke separate service-route and paths.

-hadriel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email