Subject: [martini] Question on registration requirements

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:08:28 -0600

A PBX is registering with an SSP expects the REGISTER transaction to  
result in a number of bindings between "phone number" AORs and the  
PBX's Contact.

Do we expect that the response to the REGISTER request will indicate  
whether these bindings have in fact been produced, or do we expect it  
to convey no such information and instead rely on the PBX to execute a  
re-event subscription and thereby learn what happened?

Historical use of REGISTER is consistent with the first approach; if  
the REGISTER request fails its authorization or authentication, it  
gets rejected.

I propose a model:

A PBX explicitly indicates which phone numbers it is binding in the  
REGISTER request. If SSP determines that PBX is not authorized for one  
or more of those phone numbers, it returns a 403 request letting the  
PBX know that the registration has failed. This at least lets us  
detect a configuration mismatch very early on.

If a registration is later retracted by SSP, then we can either use  
reg-event to inform PBX, or simply reject further re-registrations  
made by PBX.

--
Dean

---

From: "Tyler Parkin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:18:40 -0500

I concur.  One way or the other the PBX and any in-the-middle devices (like 
these SBC's we've invested so heavily in) need to be aware of what addresses 
the SSP considers registered/active.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
To: "MARTINI" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:08 PM
Subject: [martini] Question on registration requirements

> result in a number of bindings between "phone number" AORs and the  PBX's 
> Contact.
>
> whether these bindings have in fact been produced, or do we expect it  to 
> convey no such information and instead rely on the PBX to execute a 
> Historical use of REGISTER is consistent with the first approach; if  the 
> REGISTER request fails its authorization or authentication, it  gets 
> rejected.
>
>
> I propose a model:
>
> REGISTER request. If SSP determines that PBX is not authorized for one  or 
> more of those phone numbers, it returns a 403 request letting the  PBX 
> know that the registration has failed. This at least lets us  detect a 
> configuration mismatch very early on.
>
> reg-event to inform PBX, or simply reject further re-registrations  made 
> by PBX.
>
> --
> Dean
> _______________________________________________
> martini mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini

---

From: "Jack Burton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:19:09 -0500

In other words, you propose to do away with "implicit" registration?  I do not think that is desirable.
 
I expect that a PBX will register its parent AOR and when it sees the 200 OK will imply registration for all associated DID number endpoints, such that calls from those numbers will be processed by the SSP.  If credentials for the parent fail, then the SSP (and PBX) would not consider it, nor any of the associated DID numbers, registered.
 
-Jack

>>> Dean Willis <[email-masked]> 2/9/2010 11:08 >>>

I propose a model:

-------------------------------------------------------- 
The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Cablevision proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Cablevision. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof. 
--------------------------------------------------------

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:24:19 +0100

Same view. "Implicit" registration is definitely required

________________________________

	De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Jack Burton
	Envoyé : mardi 9 février 2010 19:19
	À : MARTINI
	Objet : Re: [martini] Question on registration requirements

	 
	-Jack

	

	I propose a model:

	

*********************************
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
********************************

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:02:30 -0600

On Feb 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Burton wrote:

> In other words, you propose to do away with "implicit"  
> registration?  I do not think that is desirable.
>
> I expect that a PBX will register its parent AOR and when it sees  
> the 200 OK will imply registration for all associated DID number  
> endpoints, such that calls from those numbers will be processed by  
> the SSP.  If credentials for the parent fail, then the SSP (and PBX)  
> would not consider it, nor any of the associated DID numbers,  
> registered.

I would like to point out that in the entire 12+-year history of SIP  
at IETF, every time we've done something "implicit" we've shot  
ourselves in the foot.

Of course, we're not good at learning from our mistakes.

Otherwise asked: How does the SSP know which of the customer's PBXes a  
specific DID should be associated with right now? Does the customer  
have to call the SSP, pay a MACD fee, and then wait for the SPP to  
reprovision  everytime a DID moves between PBXes? Why do we think  
that's a good model? Neutering a SIP extension in order to require and  
preserve the use of an obsolete business model makes little sense to me.

--
Dean

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:17:48 -0500

Oh Dean this is so out of scope here. We have already said that currently
how the PBX knows what DID it uses is not the issue here that is a
provisioning problem more suited to MARTINI - VODKA. We are not going to
debate SSP business practices.. <geez>

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Dean Willis
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:03 PM
To: Jack Burton
Cc: MARTINI
Subject: Re: [martini] Question on registration requirements

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:55:22 -0600

> debate SSP business practices.. <geez>

I'm not suggesting that the PBX learn what DID it is using via  
MARTINI. That's either a provisioning problem or a basic SIP  
registration problem requiring no new work here.

I'm suggesting that MARTINI is how a PBX can tell an SSP (and arguably  
intermediaries who care, like Hadriel's SBCs) about which PBX (from a  
potential pool of many) is currently expecting calls to/from a  
specific DID.

This is NOT PROVISIONING. Our apparent inability to distinguish  
between dynamic registration and provisioning is probably why we've  
got such a miss-matched set of requirements and expectations for  
MARTINI.

--
Dean

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:44:26 +0100

Dean,

I have already answered this on the other thread. The nomadic user moving between two PBXs does not need to be dealt with through the MARTINI registration process. I agree with what Jack, Richard, Bruno and others have already said - the PBX needs to be able to register implicitly for those E.164 numbers that have been provisioned. The reg-event package is good enough for determining what actually is registered.

John

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dean Willis
> Sent: 09 February 2010 20:55
> To: Richard Shockey
> Cc: 'MARTINI'