[martini] Draft notes from MARTINI Interim V
"Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 23 June 2010 16:55 UTC
Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 9171728C0E4 for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.675
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.675 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 VIMp3S-y3uuV for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s6.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s6.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8CD3A69DB for <martini@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU137-DS14 ([65.55.111.73]) by blu0-omc2-s6.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:55:13 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [72.11.69.66]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU137-DS143D087AAA086D8743FE8493C50@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: martini@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:55:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01CB12BA.2C9F1030"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcsS9NieB/OdiKBUQjuMHz6U4follg==
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2010 16:55:13.0750 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9515F60:01CB12F4]
Subject: [martini] Draft notes from MARTINI Interim V
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: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:55:08 -0000
If you want me to tidy them up, ask and I will do it tomorrow. I've already had a 14 hour working day. John ################################ Adam Roach Bernard Aboba Brian Lindsay Cullen Jennings begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting Ernst Horvath John Elwell Laura Liess Martien Huysmans Mary Barnes Paul Kyzivat Richard Shockey begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting Spencer Dawkins Alan Johnston Dan Romascanu Krisztian Kiss Keith Drage Peter Leis Tim Dwight David Hancock James Swan Hadriel Kaplan Martin Dolly Draft-ietf-martin-gin-03 - Adam Roach No objection to moving requirements analysis to appendix. Ticket#28 - user=phone. Can we live with autouser mechanism in 03? Cullen: PBX does nothing different if it receives user=phone - effectively should be ignored, so adding specification for this will make things better rather than worse. John: Shares Adam's opinion that just need a solution, but solution should be as simple as possible. Cullen: Similar statement. E.g., if get all numeric string or string beginning +, just ignore whether user=phone present. Keith: So rewrite RFC 3261? Cullen: Expect the unexpected - be generous in what you receive. Keith: So send whatever you like? Cullen: Yes. Adam: ???? Cullen: Send what 3261 says you should send, and accept whatever you receive (with/without user=phone). Adam: So what template is sent to SSP? Cullen: Doesn't matter. Spencer: So sending should be OK. Cullen: It doesn't matter. Adam: Cullen seems to be suggesting don't send user= in templates, and SSP sends whatever 3261 says, and PBX acceptes what it receives (with/without user=phone). Any objection? Bernard: Would we expect any objection from IESG. Adam: Should be a problem as long as we are not contradicting SIP. Keith: So 3261 says must include user=phone if expect recipient to process as telephone-subscriber string. Adam: That is really an issue with 3261 itself. Adam: No objection to proposal above, so will reflect in next draft. Keith: What about delivery through to phones behind the PBX. Adam: That is a matter for the PBX. Keith: Which entities are we writing behaviour for? Adam: Terminals not impacted and will have no knowledge that they are behind a MARTINI interface. Keith: ???? Adam: We are only specifying the PBX interface to the SSP and vice versa. Keith: PBX could be a proxy or B2BUA. What requirement are we placing the "ignore" on? Paul: This is processing request-URIs. John: And even proxies can manipulate Request-URIs Adam: ???? Keith: Be careful of terminology. Paul: ???? Adam: I think I can provide text to capture Keith's concerns and make it clear exactly to which interface procedures apply to. No further objection to the approach. Ticket #36 - reg-event handling Issue of whether to handle subscription at SSP or at PBX. Proposed way forward is for gin to mandate neither behaviour - just describe the pros and cons and leave it to other bodies such as 3GPP to define it to suit their architectures. Cullen: Sounds like an interoperability nightmare, because a subscriber won't know what it will get. Spencer: Will have different Request-URIs Adam: No, they will be the same. This is a similar situation to architectural issues already discussed with presence, i.e., whether a presence subscription is handled by a presence server or a terminal. Paul: I am more in Cullen's camp. People will want both. Cullen: Different people will want different things. Keith: If you want the local one, how do you ensure you have got the local one. Paul: Could do a second subscription if it gets the wrong one, but puts burden on client, which shouldn't know about MARTINI. Keith: Yes. Adam: That is why my initial proposal was for PBX to process subscriptions, which would normally be what the subscriber expects. Hadriel and Bernard convinced him to do differently. Bernard: Was not disagreeing with Paul. Hadriel: Doesn't understand what domain name a UA behind the PBX would register to - isn't ssp.com, so if they want events for the PBX registrar, would not be subscribing to ...@ssp.com. Paul: But other people wanting information about me would use the URI they would use to reach me. Keith: If get URI of business card and subscribe to it, would they get the information they want? Adam: Right, and if SSP replies would not get expected information like whether I can do video. Cullen: Agree with Keith that it has to be the PBX that responds. Paul: If there are other cases requiring different logic ... Martin: ???? Adam: Part of callee caps, part of registrar and in reg-event package. Martin: Doesn't see usefulness of this. Hadriel: That is not a commmon use case for reg-event package. Adam: Keith: Can understand why you might want to do it for diagnostic purposes. Cullen: Boatload of reasons for callee caps. Paul: Question was simply why callee caps is included in reg-event. For completeness. Hadriel: This is a sidetrack - what are people using reg-event for. Paul: Mostly people in same domain, UAs from same user, buddies, etc. But dangerous to make assumptions about what things are used for. Hadriel: Most people use reg-event just for ???? ???? Couldn't keep up with discussion here - largely repetitive. Keith: Not sure whether we have a need for reg-event from the MARTINI side of the PBX requiring state from the PBX. Chair: Need to take this to list. Adam: We tried this already, and we had this proposal and no comments on list. Bernard: Can we cover the points stated during this discussion in context of Adam's proposal: ????: But doesn't address Cullen's concern. Hadriel: Happy to say it must go to the PBX, as long as you have some separate means for subscribing to the SSP. Adam: That is already covered in the document - can subscribe to the PBX state as whole as seen by the SSP. Spencer: would be thrilled to stick with what is in the document. Cullen: Any objections to this? Hadriel: Question about URS that end up in reg-event document. Adam: Will need to dig into reg-event a little to clarify this. Paul: A way of federating: Adam: SSP can create back-end subscriptions and aggregate them, but a lot of work and unlikely to be implemented. Paul: We have a bunch of stuff on GRUU, but we have not talked about GRUU reg-event. Adam: What are use cases? Paul: Some 3GPP cases. Keith: Have to make sure that what we do works even when PBX registrar is not aware of MARTINI. Adam: PBX has the information, because it is the one handing out the GRUUs to the terminals. Paul: Public GRUU will be in domain of SSP anyway. Adam: Yes, and that can be send for reg-event. Paul: Will result in hairpinning of request to these GRUUs Adam: Can have local interception. Martin: What problem are we solving. PBXs know where to route traffic. Adam: Don't think there is one. Martin: We can route things today, so why is routing of GRUUs any different? Paul: But this is something different they have to route, so might break things. Paul: I go back to what Adam says - PBX allocates the GRUUs and can route accordingly. Martin: We don't want people hairpinning through us. All seem to be in agreement really! Adam: To summarise, text in -03 is what we will move forward with, but need to work out how it interacts with URIs in body or reg-event document. Keith: Going in right direction, but not sufficient. Richard: Isn't the PBX logically the correct entity? Keith: Does 03 allow subscription to SSP registrar. Adam: Yes, but only for the PBX itself, not for a single phone number behind the PBX. Keith: So need some text that clarifies the two cases. Adam: These are in separate sections, so difference should be clear enough. Keith: Would like something earlier on in an informative part of the document, e.g., section 4. Adam: 7.2 talks about this, send text if something is missing. Temp-GRUU handling. Described how asymmetric encryption scheme replaces the symmetric encryption scheme of GRUU RFC. Paul: Seem to recall some desire at time of working on GRUU to distribute the functionality more between registrar and UA, and gave up on it. Cullen: Three key people at the time had very different ideas on how to proceed. Alan: Is it the case that what might be acceptable for PBXs would have been unacceptable to terminals? Paul: But Cullen doesn't find it acceptable to PBXs either. Cullen: Issue is with transporting the key. Can easily avoid it, and doesn't object to mechanism in general. Paul: Don't have a good idea on computational load - could be a problem. Adam: Operations are exactly the same, except for SSP signing an integer, but only happens once when PBX comes on-line. Plus one is RSA rather than symmetric, but still talking the same order of magnitude. Bernard: Need to take to list. Draft-vanelburg-martini-friends-00 (Martin Dolly) Adam: So what changes are proposed to gin: ????: Just a new option tag Martin: Want to define another option tag within gin that is not the gin option tag. ???? What are semantics of new option tag? Spencer: Would it be sufficient just to point to the 3GPP/ETSI standard. Adam: Could be done as a different draft. Cullen: Can somebody give me a description of this, can somebody send a link? Keith: Was in slides for one of the early MARTINI meetings. Richard: References are in the 3GPP draft. Cullen: Want specific reference, and in fact a description of how it works in 3GPP. Martini: Can do that on the list. Speaking as AT&T, my motivation for including it in the gin draft, as opposed to a separate draft, makes me feel more comfortable. Richard: I am sold with the idea of two option tags, and only question is which draft. Martin: ???? Spencer: Both chairs are sold on two option tags, and need to work out how to make that happen. Can somebody provide some text for the IANA section? Bernard: Would it be possible for ETSI/3GPP to actually ask for the tag? Spencer: Perhaps Gonzalo could help. John: Concern that 3GPP/ETSI would be allocated an option tag without undergoing the same scrutiny that the SIP Forum proposal 6 months ago had to go through, going through several drafts and end up with gin. Cullen: I have some sympathy with AT&T, Verizon, etc., and want to know what has to be done to make it work. Martin: We enter into business agreement with enterprise, and know exactly what we will receive from them, what sort of traffic. Don't need reg-event package. Richard: As chairman of SIP Forum board, different sizes of PBX, and reg-event package deals with the <24 or <12 size. Bernard: Way forward is to get 3GPP/ETSI to make a proposal. John: Concerned about 2 solutions, when in fact the 3GPP/ETSI proposal is not 100 miles away from the original SIP Forum proposal, which was rejected by the IETF. Spencer: Need to see what our AD, Gonzalo, thinks about this, also in his capacity as 3GPP liaison officer. I hear what John says and is sympathetic, but does not want to hold up gin. Adam: But including option tag in gin draft would hold it up anyway. Keith: Should already have been done. Nothing in IETF/3GPP agreement that 3GPP has to submit an I-D. IETF should take publicly available specs. Martin: Will provide information for Cullen. Richard: Simply a tactical issue whether two RFCs or not. Spencer: Actions are 3GPP guys (Martin, Keith) to make sure we get a request to our 3GPP liaison, and see what Gonzalo as AD thinks is the right way to go. Richard: And that we get the documents to the list so we can see them.
- [martini] Draft notes from MARTINI Interim V Bernard Aboba