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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Tue, 28 September 2010 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@cisco.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 AFEAC3A6E20 for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 4SLw6EwYaVG4 for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 859113A6E01 for <martini@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABDNoUxAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACiHnGvY50OhUQEijqCfw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,248,1283731200"; d="scan'208";a="164450211"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2010 18:14:30 +0000
Received: from [161.44.174.118] (dhcp-161-44-174-118.cisco.com [161.44.174.118]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8SIEUPe004394; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:14:30 GMT
Message-ID: <4CA23086.8010404@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:14:30 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA01C81C2B32@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <B1771F0F1F97A8478E2F449EA19CC7C5DA1A7EB3@ESESSCMS0365.eemea.ericsson.se> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA01C81C2D93@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <F1A0ED6425368141998E077AC43334E425B8D6F6@gbplmail02.genband.com> <4CA21DF2.5080709@cisco.com> <DD8DA2BD-997C-420F-965F-98D9EEC7C6E9@acmepacket.com>
In-Reply-To: <DD8DA2BD-997C-420F-965F-98D9EEC7C6E9@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "martini@ietf.org" <martini@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph
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: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:14:03 -0000

On 9/28/2010 1:32 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
> You can look at it that way, or you can look at it a different way: all GIN is (supposed) to be doing is specifying a means to use REGISTER for bulk contacts - a compressed form of sending unique REGISTER requests per UA.  GRUU is not mandatory for REGISTER of a single AoR->contact, ergo it shouldn't be necessary for REGISTER of multiple AoR->contacts.  We're specifying a protocol, not a service profile.  The latter is more the SIP Forum's role, for example.

Yeah. But if we were starting over I'm pretty certain we'd recognize 
that UAs often don't have globally routable addresses of their own, and 
would make GRUU mandatory for registrars. Its only historical precedent 
that we don't have that. Here we have to opportunity not make that 
mistake again.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> -hadriel
>
>
> On Sep 28, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/28/2010 12:34 PM, Brian Lindsay wrote:
>>> Hi John/all,
>>>
>>>     Whether support for routing of out-of-dialog requests to a contact is required should depend on the service offering of the SSP. For example, SSP support for an out-of-dialog REFER to a contact URI shouldn't be considered mandatory as discussed previously. As such, I think the text proposed should be conditional based on whether such services are supported by the SSP across it's interfaces.
>>
>> This implies that the SSP knows and controls all the services that may
>> be used with its customers.
>>
>> 	Thanks,
>> 	Paul
>>
>>>     Here is some alternate proposed text:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Some services may require that entities, outside the SIP PBX, be able to send out-of-dialog requests to a UA behind a SIP-PBX, using a globally routable contact URI. If an SSP supports such services across the SSP interfaces, the 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. In such a case the lifetime of the mapping may depend on the services supported by the SSP)."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Regards
>>>         Brian
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: martini-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:martini-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Elwell, John
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 5:52 AM
>>> To: martini@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph
>>>
>>> Martien has privately indicated to me a certain lack of clarity in the proposed text. In thinking about this again, I haven't got the wording quite right. The bulk registration mechanism doesn't register UAs behind the PBX - it registers contacts for each of the AORs assigned to the PBX. What we are concerned about here is contact URIs for UAs behind the PBX. Those UAs register with the PBX, they do not register using the bulk registration mechanism. So my revised words would be as follows (only the first sentence has changed):
>>>
>>> "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)."
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Elwell, John
>>>> Sent: 28 September 2010 08:44
>>>> To: 'Martien Huysmans'
>>>> Subject: RE: New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph
>>>>
>>>> Martien,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, in thinking about this again, I haven't got the wording
>>>> quite right. The bulk registration mechanism doesn't register
>>>> UAs behind the PBX - it registers contacts for each of the
>>>> AORs assigned to the PBX. What we are concerned about here is
>>>> contact URIs for UAs behind the PBX. Those UAs register with
>>>> the PBX, they do not register using the bulk registration
>>>> mechanism. So my revised words would be as follows (only the
>>>> first sentence has changed):
>>>>
>>>> "An SSP needs to provide a means of assigning globally
>>>> routable contact URIs to UAs behind a SIP-PBX, thereby
>>>> allowing other entities to address out-of-dialog requests to
>>>> those UAs. 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)."
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Martien Huysmans [mailto:martien.huysmans@ericsson.com]
>>>>> Sent: 28 September 2010 08:13
>>>>> To: Elwell, John
>>>>> Subject: RE: New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph
>>>>>
>>>>> I find this a difficult sentence to understand. Is UA the
>>>>> SIP-PBX or the UA behind the SIP-PBX. So I propose to add
>>>>> "behind a SIP-PBX".
>>>>>
>>>>> An SSP needs to provide a means of assigning globally
>>>>> routable contact URIs to UAs behind a SIP-PBX ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards Martien
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: martini-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>> [mailto:martini-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Elwell, John
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:30 PM
>>>>> To: martini@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph
>>>>>
>>>>> As actioned on this evening's call, here is my proposed text:
>>>>>
>>>>> "An SSP needs to provide a means of assigning globally
>>>>> routable contact URIs to UAs that have been registered using
>>>>> the bulk registration mechanism specified in this document,
>>>>> thereby allowing other entities to address out-of-dialog
>>>>> requests to those UAs. 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)."
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> martini mailing list
>>>>> martini@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> martini mailing list
>>> martini@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> martini mailing list
>>> martini@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> martini mailing list
>> martini@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
>
>