IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [martini] Consensus call: Resolution of Ticket #57

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 03 September 2010 14:40 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 4E4943A67E4 for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 V+G2QIR5+R8S for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:40:36 -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 6553F3A6901 for <martini@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:40:19 -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 o83EehO7015638 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:40:43 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4C8108EB.2020409@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:40:43 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
References: <BLU137-W878D9ABB4B6A396E0682493860@phx.gbl> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA01C48DB925@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <006e01cb4b74$b0cb15a0$126140e0$@us>
In-Reply-To: <006e01cb4b74$b0cb15a0$126140e0$@us>
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
Subject: Re: [martini] Consensus call: Resolution of Ticket #57
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: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:40:37 -0000

  On 9/3/10 9:31 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> I'm in complete agreement with John here. Adding the MUST requirement for
> GRUU's on the SSP is in my judgment setting the bar too high.  The evidence
> is here.
>
> https://www.sipit.net/SIPit26_Summary

Wow. Server implementation is at 31%. That's better than some of the 
IMS-mandated (MUST, not SHOULD) mechanisms like service-route (23%) and 
sigcomp (15%). And it ties with ipsec, which is also MUST-strength in 
IMS networks.

That's quite a bit higher implementation penetration than I expected.

Basically, it means that making GRUU a MUST will hinder GIN deployment 
_LESS_ _THAN_ service-route, sigcomp, and ipsec will for IMS. I think 
that's pretty good.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email