Re: [martini] pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu; adam@nostrum.com; HKaplan@acmepacket.com; g.russell@cablelabs.com

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 31 January 2012 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: martini@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: martini@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C9B21F851D for <martini@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:17:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1MtH1SU65DwA for <martini@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE4621F851C for <martini@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.98]) by QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id UDbV1i00227AodY5BEHkSM; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:17:44 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([24.62.229.5]) by omta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id UEHk1i00K07duvL3fEHkf1; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:17:44 +0000
Message-ID: <4F27F806.2020805@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:17:42 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: martini@ietf.org
References: <76AC5FEF83F1E64491446437EA81A61F81DF5C7E84@srvxchg>
In-Reply-To: <76AC5FEF83F1E64491446437EA81A61F81DF5C7E84@srvxchg>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [martini] pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu; adam@nostrum.com; HKaplan@acmepacket.com; g.russell@cablelabs.com
X-BeenThere: martini@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of en-mass SIP PBX registration mechanisms <martini.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:17:46 -0000

On 1/31/12 2:07 AM, David Hancock wrote:
> Another GIN question...
> Section 10.3 of RFC 3261 says that the 200OK response to a REGISTER
> request MUST return all current bindings in the Contact header field.
> Here's the text...
>
> 8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response.The response MUST
>
> contain Contact header field values enumerating all current
>
> bindings.Each Contact value MUST feature an "expires"
>
> parameter indicating its expiration interval chosen by the
>
> registrar.The response SHOULD include a Date header field.
>
> What does this mean for GIN registration? Does it mean that the
> registrar should return the full list of contact addresses that were
> bound to the implicitly registered AORs? Or, should it return only the
> contact address that was specified in the REGISTER Contact header field?
> I think the later behavior is correct.

I agree, for at least two reasons:

- the list of implicitly registered AORs can be arbitrarily large,
   and so infeasible to return

- based on our prior discussion, its necessary to have the actual
   registered contacts in order to deregister them. This is one way
   to get them.

> For example, say a SIP-PBX registers to 2 different contact addresses.
> First, the SIP-PBX identified in the To: header field of [1] registers
> to the Contact address identified in [1]. Response [2] contains the
> single registered contact address, even though the multiple implicitly
> registered AORs were bound to multiple contacts. Then, the same PBX
> registers to a 2nd contact address in [3]. Response [4] now shows two
> contact addresses; one for each of the currently registered bindings for
> the SIP-PBX.
>
> SIP-PBXSP-SSE
>
> -----------------
>
> PBX registers 1st time...
>
> [1] --REGISTER-->
>
> To: sip:pbx1@sp.com
>
> Contact: <sip:10.10.10.1;bnc>
>
> [2] <--200OK --
>
> To: sip:pbx1@sp.com
>
> Contact: <sip:10.10.10.10;bnc>
>
> PBX registers 2nd time to a different contact address...
>
> [3] --REGISTER-->
>
> To: sip:pbx1@sp.com
>
> Contact: <sip:192.168.2.1;bnc>
>
> [4] <--200OK --
>
> To: sip:pbx1@sp.com
>
> Contact: <sip:192.168.2.1;bnc>, <sip:10.10.10.10;bnc>
>
> Would appreciate your input on a) is the above example correct, and b)
> do we need an errata to RFC6140 to clarify this case?

I'd like to hear what others have to say before deciding this.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Thanks
> David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> martini mailing list
> martini@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini