Re: [sipcore] Draft new version:draft-holmberg-sipcore-proxy-feature

"Andrew Allen" <aallen@rim.com> Mon, 24 January 2011 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <aallen@rim.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7663A6AE2 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 07:42:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 3Sf49xkQ5JNX for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 07:42:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mhs04ykf.rim.net (mhs04ykf.rim.net [216.9.243.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85C53A6ADE for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 07:42:27 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 0a666446-b7b8cae0000009e2-10-4d3d9e910d21
Received: from XCH138CNC.rim.net ( [10.65.20.127]) by mhs04ykf.rim.net (RIM Mail) with SMTP id 35.89.02530.19E9D3D4; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:45:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from XCH02DFW.rim.net ([10.150.100.31]) by XCH138CNC.rim.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:45:21 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:45:17 -0600
Message-ID: <BDBFB6CE314EDF4CB80404CACAEFF5DE06AE1F82@XCH02DFW.rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA05FCA0D6FD@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Draft new version:draft-holmberg-sipcore-proxy-feature
Thread-Index: AcuWE+kQHPR3a668Th+74O6FYhCCTAYacMJAA1c3KtAAAMquhw==
From: Andrew Allen <aallen@rim.com>
To: john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com, christer.holmberg@ericsson.com, sipcore@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2011 15:45:21.0848 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5902380:01CBBBDD]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAwAAAZEXMpcWFzNPJQ==
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Draft new version:draft-holmberg-sipcore-proxy-feature
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:42:29 -0000

John

I agree the indication needs to identify the features supported not just the presence of an entity.

Andrew

----- Original Message -----
From: Elwell, John [mailto:john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 09:32 AM
To: Andrew Allen; Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; sipcore@ietf.org <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [sipcore] Draft new version:draft-holmberg-sipcore-proxy-feature

Just picking on one particular example from Andrew's post: 

> SIP PBXs may be present in a network and may provide call 
> features and other services on behalf of the UA. In some 
> cases the UA may need to address requests to the PBX to 
> invoke some features or services. Although presence of the 
> PBX could be indicated using configuration this isn't really 
> effective when there are mobile UAs moving between enterprise 
> networks that have PBXs and public networks that don't.  
[JRE] Although we all perhaps have a similar notion of what a PBX is, this is not a tightly defined term in the SIP context (the nearest we have is the MARTINI notion of SIP-PBX in the context of bulk registration, but I suspect that is not what you have in mind). A PBX could do all sorts of things differently from some other SIP entity (such as a Service Provider SIP proxy), but particular behaviour is very much dependent on the design of a PBX and how it is deployed. If proxy features are indeed to be indicated (I have not yet formed an opinion on this), they should be more precisely defined, i.e., at the level of particular features that the PBX can perform, rather than just the fact it is a PBX.

John

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.