Re: [martini] Call for Consensus: Support for Public GRUUs

According to the rough rule of thumb figures I learnt 30 years ago, on average 50% of the traffic is internal to a PBX and 50% outside. While those figures may have changed over the intervening years due to more advance private networking, I'm sure they are not that far out. So you are eliminating the usages of services that may use GRUUs from 50% of the traffic, based on the desire or not of the service provider to implement a capability.

More concerning is that the absence or not of this capability is totally invisible to the end UA, and indeed even to many elements of the PBX itself. So we have no means to find out whether a capability exists before we actually try and use it.

regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Lindsay [mailto:brian.lindsay@genband.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:29 PM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); martini@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [martini] Call for Consensus: Support for Public GRUUs
> 
> Hi Keith,
> 
>    Agree an individual UA within an enterprise doesn't have 
> any choice about business trunking arrangement used, but the 
> parent enterprise deploying the PBX and UA's does. An 
> enterprise would be free to select a specific service 
> provider that offered a GRUU capability if that was important 
> to the enterprise from a service perspective. (Service 
> providers could hypothetically even charge for GRUU as an 
> incremental capability).
> 
>   Also, what precludes usage of GRUU's internally within an 
> enterprise as long as the PBX doesn't send them towards the network?
> 
>   Thanks
>      Brian
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 7:09 AM
> To: Brian Lindsay; martini@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [martini] Call for Consensus: Support for Public GRUUs
> 
> No.
> 
> The key question is whether the SSP end supports GRUU (as 
> originally posted), so it is available to a PBX UA if it 
> requires a service that uses it.
> 
> While I agree that GRUU is currently optional for registrars 
> to deploy, I suspect that if we started SIP now, an 
> appropriate mechanism would have been a mandatory element for 
> registrars. Optional is possible in the direct UA to 
> registrar case because the UA at least has some direct choice 
> over which registrars it uses.
> 
> In the PBX environment, a UA wishing to use GRUUs to 
> implement a service has very little choice over which 
> business trunking arrangements it uses.
> 
> So no support of GRUUs at the SSP in business trunking means 
> no service using GRUUs within the private network.
> 
> Keith
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: martini-bounces@ietf.org
> > [mailto:martini-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Lindsay
> > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 10:30 PM
> > To: Cullen Jennings; martini@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [martini] Call for Consensus: Support for Public GRUUs
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> >   If GIN truly "breaks" SIP, then wouldn't that mean that SIP PBXs, 
> > and their UA's, would also need to be mandated to support 
> GRUU (which 
> > doesn't seem to be the suggestion).
> > 
> >   Now perhaps something like an out-of-dialog REFER for 
> Call Transfer 
> > to the SIP PBX won't be possible without GRUU. But is that truly a 
> > mandatory capability that is required to be supported as part of a 
> > basic SIP PBX offering by a service provider? Or would be 
> ubiquitously 
> > supported/allowed by SIP PBXs?
> > 
> >  Thanks
> >      Brian
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: martini-bounces@ietf.org
> > [mailto:martini-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 4:13 PM
> > To: martini@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [martini] Call for Consensus: Support for Public GRUUs
> > 
> > 
> > GIN breaks significant parts of SIP without GRUUs (or some 
> equivalent 
> > functionality) so I think we need GRUUs to be required to 
> be implement 
> > on the SSP side of GIN.
> > 
> > 
> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > 
> > > At the IETF 78 MARTINI WG meeting, during the discussion of
> > Ticket 57 (relating to temporary GRUUs), a suggestion was made that 
> > public GRUUs be mandatory to implement for SSPs.
> > > 
> > > We will now attempt to determine whether consensus exists
> > within the MARTINI WG to make this change to the document. 
> > > 
> > > Please respond to this email and post your opinion as to
> > whether you agree that SSPs supporting MARTINI MUST 
> implement support 
> > for public GRUUs.
> > > 
> > > This consensus call will last until September 12, 2010.  
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > martini mailing list
> > > martini@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
> > 
> > 
> > Cullen Jennings
> > For corporate legal information go to:
> > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > martini mailing list
> > martini@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
> > _______________________________________________
> > martini mailing list
> > martini@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
> > 
> 