Re: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>]

NO.

There is no point in GIN if it cannot support a real registrar in the PBX. It may be perfectly interoperable across the interface, but if information gets removed as a result of the process that normal operation of the registrar in the PBX needs, then there is no point in the interface existing either.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian Lindsay
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 8:00 PM
> To: Paul Kyzivat
> Cc: [e-mail]; Hadriel Kaplan
> Subject: Re: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
>   Shouldn't the GIN MUST's be primarily around 
> interoperability of the GIN registration mechanism itself?
> 
>   I don't think GRUU falls into that category. GRUU isn't 
> required to make use of the GIN Registration mechanism. It 
> isn't required in all deployments. Yes, GRUU's can be very 
> useful but that doesn't mean that it's in the scope of GIN to 
> mandate them.
> 
>   Thanks
>      Brian
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 2:39 PM
> To: Brian Lindsay
> Cc: Hadriel Kaplan; Elwell, John; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph
> 
> Then why don't we just change all the MUSTs and SHOULDs in 
> gin to MAYs ??? The users can negotiate with their SSP over 
> which ones are supported.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> On 9/29/2010 2:00 PM, Brian Lindsay wrote:
> > Hi Hadriel,
> >
> >     My preference, rather than having a MUST with an unless 
> clause, is to not use MUST in the 1st place. I think your 
> comments below reflect the fact that the unless clause is 
> really something that should be out of scope of the draft - 
> and that there should not be a need for an associated MUST on 
> requirements for GRUU.
> >
> >     Thanks
> >        Brian
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:33 PM
> > To: Brian Lindsay
> > Cc: Paul Kyzivat; Elwell, John; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first 
> paragraph
> >
> >
> > But it doesn't mandate GRUU be used with GIN.  John's 
> proposed text is:
> > "An SSP needs to provide a means of assigning a globally 
> routable contact URI to a UA behind a SIP-PBX, thereby 
> allowing other entities to address out-of-dialog requests to 
> that UA. To achieve this, an SSP MUST support the public GRUU 
> mechanism described in this section, unless the SSP has other 
> means of providing globally routable contact URIs (e.g., by 
> acting as a B2BUA and performing mapping between 
> SIP-PBX-provided local contact URIs and SSP-provided globally 
> routable contact URIs)."
> >
> > The "unless..." exemption means you don't have to do GRUU, 
> which means the REGISTER response does not have to provide 
> one, which means the PBX can't expect there to be one in it.  
> So the registration succeeds, sans GRUU.  At that point an 
> SSP can do whatever it likes, since the rest of the 
> "unless..." statement is unenforceable and undetectable 
> on-the-wire.  You'd only "detect" it's not complied with if a 
> particular service like transfer doesn't work in some 
> scenario; and whether to support that scenario is a decision 
> between the SSP and its Enterprise customer at that point.  
> It's really just hubris on the IETF's part, but who cares?
> >
> > -hadriel
> >
> > On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Brian Lindsay wrote:
> >
> >>   GIN has defined a how GRUU's can be used with the GIN 
> mechanism, but I don't think it's necessary to mandate when 
> they are used. It's technically possible to use the basic GIN 
> registration mechanism independent of GRUU, so I think the 
> coupling isn't necessary.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Brian
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> martini mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
>