IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian Lindsay <brian.lindsay@genband.com> Sun, 29 August 2010 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.lindsay@genband.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 09B3D3A6830 for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.785, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 BeVtlfsYdHkf for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491913A67FF for <martini@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([63.149.188.88]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTHp5peDDbzM6LJbp+UcVmiGrXMPdcbHI@postini.com; Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:15:50 PDT
Received: from owa.genband.com ([172.16.21.97]) by mail.genband.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:15:21 -0500
Received: from GBEX02.genband.com (172.16.21.98) by GBEX01.genband.com (172.16.21.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.702.0; Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:15:21 -0500
Received: from GBPLMAIL01.genband.com ([fe80::70bf:29d1:2cfe:42b5]) by gbex02.genband.com ([fe80::350f:45df:8dbd:4b0e%15]) with mapi; Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:15:21 -0500
From: Brian Lindsay <brian.lindsay@genband.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "martini@ietf.org" <martini@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [martini] Call for Consensus: Support for Public GRUUs
Thread-Index: AQHLRuljq09QO/N/H0+3dGb5MW9lrpL4iiRw
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:15:16 +0000
Message-ID: <F1A0ED6425368141998E077AC43334E414EA8A76@gbplmail01.genband.com>
References: <BLU137-W878D9ABB4B6A396E0682493860@phx.gbl>, <F1A0ED6425368141998E077AC43334E414EA89F9@gbplmail01.genband.com> <BLU137-W122E29863A150E6483B96893870@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU137-W122E29863A150E6483B96893870@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F1A0ED6425368141998E077AC43334E414EA8A76gbplmail01genba_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2010 15:15:22.0006 (UTC) FILETIME=[FFA30B60:01CB478C]
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.4160-6.500.1024-17604.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--27.382300-5.000000-31
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No
Subject: Re: [martini] Call for Consensus: Support for Public GRUUs
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: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:15:39 -0000

HI Bernard,

      I would like to see public GRUU's continue to be optional in the GIN draft, rather than mandating them.

      My view is that is that it is appropriate for the GIN draft to define how GRUU interacts with the GIN registration mechanism, but there does not need to be a coupling/dependency such that an implementer of the GIN registration mechanism is also required to implement GRUU.  In short - I think what is in the -05 draft is fine.


*         Most existing SIP Trunking deployments do not use/require GRUU's. The main driver for the martini work has always been about aligning on the semantics of the registration request and request uri population. This can be done without introducing a dependency on GRUU implementation.

*         The GRUU RFC is still an optional mechanism as far as SIP is concerned

*         A baseline set of services can be provided without requiring GRUU. For example, the current draft of SIP Connect 1.1 (  http://www.sipforum.org/component/option,com_docman/task,cat_view/gid,84/Itemid,75/   ) has a baseline call transfer capability defined that uses re-invites and doesn't use REFER.  REFER-based transfer is optional, as is the usage of out-of-dialog REFER. (The language actually discourages use of REFER due to billing risks/considerations).

  Thanks
      Brian

-----------------------------------------
Brian Lindsay
Sr. Architect, System Architecture
GENBAND
+1.613.763.3459
brian.lindsay@genband.com


From: martini-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:martini-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 3:44 PM
To: martini@ietf.org
Subject: [martini] Call for Consensus: Support for Public GRUUs

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email