Re: [martini] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-martini-gin

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 19 July 2010 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 B89AA3A6BC2 for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.663
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
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 mDcyQQxpMrI5 for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BDFA3A6BB7 for <martini@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dn3-228.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6JNXeuh024924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:33:40 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4C44E110.8010109@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:34:40 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Thunderbird/3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
References: <4C449E38.2060200@gmail.com> <4C44A163.5020801@nostrum.com> <4C44AAD6.9010106@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C44AAD6.9010106@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "martini@ietf.org" <martini@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [martini] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-martini-gin
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, 19 Jul 2010 23:39:29 -0000

  On 7/19/10 2:43 PM, Alan Johnston wrote:
>
> On 7/19/10 2:02 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>>> Section 5.2:
>>>
>>> While the SIP-PBX MUST include Proxy-Require:gin, it is possible a
>>> registration might arrive at a Registrar with a bnc but no
>>> Proxy-Require:gin.  Should we define the correct behavior of the
>>> Registrar for this case?
>> How would that happen?
> Could be misconfiguration or other error.  Or someone might turn off
> Proxy-Require in order to get the registration to work through some ALG
> or proxy.

I don't think we need to make explicit accommodations for failures borne 
of attempts to defeat the protocol itself.

> I guess I'm asking if the Registrar should process or reject a bnc
> registration if the Proxy-Require isn't present.

I don't think so. If the Registrar isn't proxying the request, then it 
should ignore "Proxy-Require" as vigorously as possible.

/a