Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-04.txt
Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 21 June 2010 21:28 UTC
Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 88D643A68FB for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.843
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.843 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.444, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6]
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 l34f6kPZ-IjW for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2D23A684E for <martini@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b80ae000001aa1-5b-4c1fd96f95c6
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E4.EA.06817.F69DF1C4; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:28:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0354.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.18]) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.125]) with mapi; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:28:15 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:28:14 +0200
Thread-Topic: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-04.txt
Thread-Index: AcsRVHWf/bF/8NzvT46XQ+V4mWwkNQAMbIoP
Message-ID: <FF84A09F50A6DC48ACB6714F4666CC7466CD5175F1@ESESSCMS0354.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <20100617230001.7BCAB3A6B2F@core3.amsl.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAE6057AB0@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4C1BF7EC.7000000@nostrum.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAE7C4C848@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <FF84A09F50A6DC48ACB6714F4666CC7466CD37E118@ESESSCMS0354.eemea.ericsson.se>, <4C1F81D2.5080501@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C1F81D2.5080501@nostrum.com>
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
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "martini@ietf.org" <martini@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-04.txt
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: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:28:12 -0000
Hi, >>Q1. As far as I remember, RFC 3261 defines an "ip" default value for the user parameter, so I guess some parsers could include it by default. > > >And, if they're going to be used in a SIP-PBX that uses GIN for >registration, they need to be changed. (To reiterate the arguments that >started this thread in the first place: it would be questionable to >include a "user" parameter on a URI that has no user portion. And these >won't. So I doubt your theoretical case exists.) I am talking about the SSP procedure. Is there a spelling error in section 5.3? >>Q3. 400 Bad Request is sent because of "malformed syntax". Is that really the case here? I think we are talking about a service error, or a unknown destination error, or something similar. > > >Pretty much, yes. Again, the objection that started this whole >bike-shed-painting exercise was an assertion that inclusion of a "user" >parameter on a SIP URI with no user portion was syntactically invalid. >So I think "400" is the right way to go. I agree that a SIP URI with no user portion, and user=phone, is invalid. But, I don't think user=ip is invalid. Can you show some text/ABNF which shows that? >>Q4. I am a little concerned with the rejecting the message in the first place. If the SSP does this, I believe it would reject at least more or less every call coming from PSTN, because every MGC I am aware of does insert user=phone in the Request-URI. > > >What? > >No. > >No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. > >It's *not* getting requests with "bnc" on them from anywhere but SIP-PBX >registrations. This doesn't even slightly apply to the case you're >describing. Again, I am not talking about the SIP-PBX, but the SSP, which can get the request from wherever. >>Q5. One could claim (and I think Cullen did) that +123 is the same with or without user=phone. But, if the userpart contains some tel-uri parameter the meaning is not the same. For example: > > +1234;param=blah with user=phone is *not* the same as +1234;param=blah without user=phone. > >It could be. That's a site-local decision to make. "user=phone" is just as ambiguous in both cases. user=phone means that the userpart shall be parsed as a tel URL. Of course a site COULD decide to do that also in other cases. Regards, Christer >> -----Original Message----- >> From: martini-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:martini-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Elwell, John >> Sent: 21. kesäkuuta 2010 9:25 >> To: Adam Roach >> Cc: martini@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-04.txt >> >> Thanks, that's fine. >> >> John >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@nostrum.com] >>> Sent: 18 June 2010 23:49 >>> To: Elwell, John >>> Cc: martini@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-04.txt >>> >>> On 6/18/10 5:28 AM, Elwell, John wrote: >>> >>>> Changes look good in general. I noticed the following in 5.3: >>>> >>>> "An SSP registrar that >>>> receives such a URI MAY discard the "user" parameter >>>> >>> and process the >>> >>>> request as if the parameter were not present. >>>> >>> Alternately, it MAY >>> >>>> return a 400 (Bad Request) error in response. >>>> >>>> Note that this requirement is talking about the user >>>> >>> parameter of >>> >>>> a URI:" >>>> >>>> 1. Instead of two "MAY"s, would it be better to have a >>>> >>> "MUST do either ... or ..."? The present formulation allows other >>> behaviours - I don't know whether we intend that or not. >>> >>>> >>>> >>> I kind of did, but really only for one set of circumstances >>> -- I didn't >>> want to disallow other valid error codes (e.g., 5xx >>> codes) in this circumstance. But I can make that explicit: >>> >>> An SSP registrar that >>> receives a "bnc" URI with a "user" parameter MUST >>> >> either discard >> >>> the >>> "user" parameter and process the request as if the >>> >> parameter were >> >>> not >>> present or return a 400 (Bad Request) error in response (unless >>> some >>> other error code is more appropriate). >>> >>> >>>> 2. In the note, what exactly does "this requirement" apply >>>> >>> to? Presumably the "MUST" that came earlier, although if we do as I >>> suggest in 1, we would end up with a second MUST, so we >>> >> might need to >> >>> say "these requirements". Depending on the resolution of 1, I think >>> the note could do with some clarification. >>> >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, the note was written prior to some expansion of that >>> >> paragraph. >> >>> I've revised it to read: >>> >>> Note that the preceding paragraph is talking about the "user" >>> parameter of a URI: >>> >>> sip:+12145550100@example.com;user=phone >>> ^^^^^^^^^^ >>> >>> There was some similar text in 5.2 (regarding user >>> >> portions) that I'm >> >>> updating in a congruent fashion. >>> >>> /a >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> martini mailing list >> martini@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini >>
- [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-04.txt Internet-Drafts
- Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-0… Elwell, John
- Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-0… Adam Roach
- Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-0… Elwell, John
- Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-0… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-0… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-0… Adam Roach
- Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-0… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-0… Adam Roach
- Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-0… Christer Holmberg