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

Hi Keith,

   Agree an individual UA within an enterprise doesn't have any choice about business trunking arrangement used, but the parent enterprise deploying the PBX and UA's does. An enterprise would be free to select a specific service provider that offered a GRUU capability if that was important to the enterprise from a service perspective. (Service providers could hypothetically even charge for GRUU as an incremental capability).

  Also, what precludes usage of GRUU's internally within an enterprise as long as the PBX doesn't send them towards the network?

  Thanks
     Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 7:09 AM
To: Brian Lindsay; martini@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [martini] Call for Consensus: Support for Public GRUUs

No.

The key question is whether the SSP end supports GRUU (as originally posted), so it is available to a PBX UA if it requires a service that uses it.

While I agree that GRUU is currently optional for registrars to deploy, I suspect that if we started SIP now, an appropriate mechanism would have been a mandatory element for registrars. Optional is possible in the direct UA to registrar case because the UA at least has some direct choice over which registrars it uses.

In the PBX environment, a UA wishing to use GRUUs to implement a service has very little choice over which business trunking arrangements it uses.

So no support of GRUUs at the SSP in business trunking means no service using GRUUs within the private network.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: martini-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:martini-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Lindsay
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 10:30 PM
> To: Cullen Jennings; martini@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [martini] Call for Consensus: Support for Public GRUUs
> 
> Hi,
> 
>   If GIN truly "breaks" SIP, then wouldn't that mean that SIP 
> PBXs, and their UA's, would also need to be mandated to 
> support GRUU (which doesn't seem to be the suggestion).
> 
>   Now perhaps something like an out-of-dialog REFER for Call 
> Transfer to the SIP PBX won't be possible without GRUU. But 
> is that truly a mandatory capability that is required to be 
> supported as part of a basic SIP PBX offering by a service 
> provider? Or would be ubiquitously supported/allowed by SIP PBXs?
> 
>  Thanks
>      Brian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: martini-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:martini-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 4:13 PM
> To: martini@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [martini] Call for Consensus: Support for Public GRUUs
> 
> 
> GIN breaks significant parts of SIP without GRUUs (or some 
> equivalent functionality) so I think we need GRUUs to be 
> required to be implement on the SSP side of GIN. 
> 
> 
> On Aug 28, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> 
> > 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.  
> > _______________________________________________
> > martini mailing list
> > martini@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
> 
> 
> Cullen Jennings
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 