Re: [martini] pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu; adam@nostrum.com; HKaplan@acmepacket.com; g.russell@cablelabs.com

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 31 January 2012 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: martini@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: martini@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40CB621F847B for <martini@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:47:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aWUE8nxSj7G8 for <martini@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:47:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C4F11E811E for <martini@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:47:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hydra-en0.roach.at (99-152-144-32.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.144.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0VIl6RD032555 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:47:07 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4F283729.8060008@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:47:05 -0600
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
References: <76AC5FEF83F1E64491446437EA81A61F81DF5C7E84@srvxchg> <4F27F806.2020805@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4F27F806.2020805@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 99.152.144.32 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: martini@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [martini] pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu; adam@nostrum.com; HKaplan@acmepacket.com; g.russell@cablelabs.com
X-BeenThere: martini@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of en-mass SIP PBX registration mechanisms <martini.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:47:15 -0000

On 1/31/12 08:17, Jan 31, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 1/31/12 2:07 AM, David Hancock wrote:
>> Does it mean that the
>> registrar should return the full list of contact addresses that were
>> bound to the implicitly registered AORs? Or, should it return only the
>> contact address that was specified in the REGISTER Contact header field?
>> I think the later behavior is correct.
>
> I agree, for at least two reasons:
>
> - the list of implicitly registered AORs can be arbitrarily large,
>   and so infeasible to return
>
> - based on our prior discussion, its necessary to have the actual
>   registered contacts in order to deregister them. This is one way
>   to get them.

Paul is correct.

>>
>> [1] --REGISTER-->
>>
>> To: sip:pbx1@sp.com
>>
>> Contact: <sip:10.10.10.1;bnc>
>>
>> [2] <--200OK --
>>
>> To: sip:pbx1@sp.com
>>
>> Contact: <sip:10.10.10.10;bnc>
>>
>> PBX registers 2nd time to a different contact address...
>>
>> [3] --REGISTER-->
>>
>> To: sip:pbx1@sp.com
>>
>> Contact: <sip:192.168.2.1;bnc>
>>
>> [4] <--200OK --
>>
>> To: sip:pbx1@sp.com
>>
>> Contact: <sip:192.168.2.1;bnc>, <sip:10.10.10.10;bnc>
>>
>> Would appreciate your input on a) is the above example correct, and b)
>> do we need an errata to RFC6140 to clarify this case?
>
> I'd like to hear what others have to say before deciding this.

Yes, the example is correct. I haven't looked at the GIN RFC closely 
enough to determine whether an erratum is warranted.

/a