Subject: Re: [martini] #36: Reg-event package and individual extension state (section 7.2.2)

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:07:03 -0700

Dean Willis said:

"Assumption #1 for MARTINI (at least at this phase) is that we're 
doing  
a bulk registration that produces a result which can not be 
externally  
distinguished from multiple unique registrations. It's not a 
new  
routing model -- it is just a bulk registration.
"

[BA] Speaking with chair hat off -- 

At various points, I have wondered about whether this was just an assumption, or something more akin to a tenet or a boundary condition.  Having a "multiple AoR registration" procedure that doesn't produce the same results as a "single AoR registration" when there is only one AoR involved seems to violate the principle of least astonishment, at least for me.

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:08:29 -0500

On Apr 26, 2010, at 2:07 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> doing a bulk registration that produces a result which can not be  
> externally distinguished from multiple unique registrations. It's  
> not a new routing model -- it is just a bulk registration. "
>
> At various points, I have wondered about whether this was just an  
> assumption, or something more akin to a tenet or a boundary  
> condition.  Having a "multiple AoR registration" procedure that  
> doesn't produce the same results as a "single AoR registration" when  
> there is only one AoR involved seems to violate the principle of  
> least astonishment, at least for me.

While I agree, it is notable that a number of the proposals made on- 
list crossed this boundary condition, sometimes dramatically. For  
example,  proposals wherein a MARTINI registration would cause the  
proxy to do something other than RFC 3261 contact-routing, such as  
perhaps loose-routing an unchanged request-URI towards the PBX, don't  
work like single registrations. While I think using loose-routing to  
solve the request-URI dispatch problem is a reasonable thing, doing it  
at a proxy in response to a REGISTER seems to be likely to get  
strange. I could see a MARTINI phase-2 that uses loose routing,  
perhaps in combination with PUBLISHed routes instead of REGISTERed  
contacts.

We've also got a contingent that favors the IMS model, which again is  
subtly different (arguably in very useful ways) from "ordinary"  
registration.

So perhaps we should find a way to carve "MARTINI phase 1 is bulk  
registration" into granite monoliths...

--
Dean

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:53:16 -0500

Speaking as individual participant...

We've certainly considered "bulk registration = individual registrations - 
multiple REGISTER messages/responses" in discussions that we've cycled 
through several times. It would be good to decide our understanding about 
this, in writing, so that when we're concluding MARTINI and someone brings 
in a new proposal, we have some place to point them before they waste a lot 
of time on a proposal that would require us to change our shared 
understanding about this point, before we would adopt the new proposal.

Speaking as co-chair...

Should that shared understanding go in the (various) solution drafts?

Thanks,

Spencer

>> Dean Willis said:
>>
>> "Assumption #1 for MARTINI (at least at this phase) is that we're  doing 
>> a bulk registration that produces a result which can not be  externally 
>> distinguished from multiple unique registrations. It's  not a new routing 
>> model -- it is just a bulk registration. "
>>
>> assumption, or something more akin to a tenet or a boundary  condition. 
>> Having a "multiple AoR registration" procedure that  doesn't produce the 
>> same results as a "single AoR registration" when  there is only one AoR 
>> involved seems to violate the principle of  least astonishment, at least 
>> for me.
>
> While I agree, it is notable that a number of the proposals made on- list 
> crossed this boundary condition, sometimes dramatically. For  example, 
> proposals wherein a MARTINI registration would cause the  proxy to do 
> something other than RFC 3261 contact-routing, such as  perhaps 
> loose-routing an unchanged request-URI towards the PBX, don't  work like 
> single registrations. While I think using loose-routing to  solve the 
> request-URI dispatch problem is a reasonable thing, doing it  at a proxy 
> in response to a REGISTER seems to be likely to get  strange. I could see 
> a MARTINI phase-2 that uses loose routing,  perhaps in combination with 
> PUBLISHed routes instead of REGISTERed  contacts.
>
> _______________________________________________
> martini mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:23:11 -0700

Spencer said: 

"Speaking as co-chair...

Should that shared understanding go in the (various) solution drafts?"

[BA] I would think that it should go somewhere, certainly.