Inline Youssef
> -----Message d'origine----- > De : Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : mercredi 30 janvier 2008 16:12 > À : CHADLI Youssef RD-CORE-ISS > Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Objet : Re: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters to > UAS via proxy > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I think there is a misunderstanding on these use cases: > > Quite possible. > > > - The intermediate entity in the customer side does > perform only one registration to the network. > > The AoRs associated to the served terminals inside the > client domain are registred automatically > > by the home network, using implicit registration for > example. In fact, it's not conceivable to > > register individually all the users of a corporate > network for example. > > You seem to be describing one of the models covered by the > SIPForum in their SIPConnect specification. Is that what you mean? The model described in Sipconnect is an example of such configuration. As I mentionned before there other cases such as home networks and other configurations of connecting corporate networks. > From the point of view of the registrar this seems similar > to IMS implicit registration, except that the scale is much > larger - there may be *very many* implicit registrations > generated by this one explicit registration. Agreed > > > - The "intermediate entity" should be able to route > incoming requests inside its domain based on > > standard RFC3261 behaviour, that is, based on the Request-URI. > > I find the case much less compelling than the IMS case. > > IMO this is an abuse of REGISTER to a purpose for which it is > not well suited. > > Treating it as registration means that there is an > *expectation* that the R-URI will be translated. That isn't > really appropriate in this case. The registration doesn't > specify the mapping anyway - it is configuration in the > network of all the addresses that belong to the "pbx" that > does that. This is more appropriately viewed as just a > routing operation, and so pushing the address of the > enterprise server as a Route header is by far the best > choice. Its only because this has been done using REGISTER > that brings up how to preserve the old address when it is translated. Agreed > > Thanks, > Paul > > > Best regards > > > > Youssef > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : lundi 28 > >> janvier 2008 21:46 À : CHADLI Youssef RD-CORE-ISS Cc : > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Objet : Re: [Sip] > Delivering > >> request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy > >> > >> These cases can all be handled by having intermediate entity use a > >> unique user part, together with its own domain name, to > construct a > >> contact address for each terminal UA that it is registering. Then > >> when it receives an incoming request to one of these uris it can > >> simply translate it, using the user part as a key to its own local > >> mappings. > >> > >> We don't need anything new to solve these cases. > >> > >> Paul > >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> > >>> There are other cases similar to what is described in > >> section 2.1 Unknown Aliases of J. Rosenberg draft that should be > >> taken into account. > >>> Those cases are where the customer side is composed of > >> several SIP terminals that access the network through an > intermediate > >> entity which registers their associated aliases with its contact > >> address. Thus, such client side is seen from the network > as a single > >> client having several aliases (aggregated endpoints). > Moreover, such > >> client side may be a mini private network composed of several > >> entities. In these configurations, the intermediate entity is in > >> charge of routeing incoming calls inside the client domain and may > >> need to behave as a SIP proxy for incoming SIP messages. > >>> As examples of such configuration: > >>> - Corporate networks: in that case the PBX register all the > >> served individual user identities with its contact address > and routes > >> incoming calls toward the individual called users. > >>> - Home networks: the Home Gateway may need to register on > >> behalf of all the served terminals. The Home Gateway is > in charge of > >> routeing incoming calls toward the individual called users. > >>> J. Rosenberg draft seems give a good solution to take into > >> account these configurations. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Youssef > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Message d'origine----- > >>>> De : DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : > >>>> lundi 14 janvier 2008 17:58 À : [email protected] Objet : [Sip] > >> Delivering > >>>> request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy > >>>> > >>>> (As WG chair) > >>>> > >>>> In fulfilment of our charter items of > >>>> > >>>> Dec 2007 Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS > >> via proxy to > >>>> WGLC > >>>> Feb 2008 Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS > >> via proxy to > >>>> IESG (PS) > >>>> > >>>> We now have a couple of proposals on the table for solving the > >>>> problem. > >>>> > >>>> The original draft from Jonathan and which led to the > >> creation of the > >>>> charter items by the WG is unfortunately expired, but is at: > >>>> > >>>> > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01.txt > >>>> > >>>> The alternative document from Christer, etc is at: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-holmberg-sip-target- > >>>> uri-delive > >>>> ry-00.txt > >>>> > >>>> We obviously need to make a decision between the two > approaches so > >>>> please attempt to address the following specific points via the > >>>> mailing > >>>> list: > >>>> > >>>> 1) Problem cases: These are summarised in section 4.4 of > >>>> draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01 and from my read of > >> the other > >>>> draft, I don't believe that this draft adds any others. > >>>> If you believe there are other cases that should be > covered by the > >>>> solution, then please identify them. If there is support > >> on any new > >>>> problem cases, I would encourage the authors of both > drafts to add > >>>> text concerning these problem cases. > >>>> > >>>> 2) Clarifications: If for any reason you don't > understand either > >>>> draft, or believe that there are technical issues that are not > >>>> represented in the current draft, please post your questions / > >>>> comments to the list. I would encourage authors of both > drafts to > >>>> revise as frequently as appropriate to reflect the current > >> state of > >>>> discussion. > >>>> > >>>> 3) Support for either position. If you wish to > indicate support for > >>>> either position please do so, but please accompany this is > >> technical > >>>> reasoning as to why you have this position, as that will > >> help other > >>>> members of the WG form a position. > >>>> > >>>> I would encourage as much list discussion as possible before > >>>> Philadelphia. I suspect we will need to have a discussion at the > >>>> face-to-face meeting in Philadephia, but list discussion > >> is essential > >>>> prior to that. If we can solve this positions on list, > >> then well and > >>>> good, and even better (that is how we are meant to make > decisions). > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Keith > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > >>>> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on > current sip Use > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > >>> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
