Subject: [martini] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-martini-gin

From: Alan Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:49:28 -0500

I have reviewed the document and believe it is ready to progress with no
technical issues.  A few minor issues are noted below that could be
addressed to improve the document, but aren't worth entering into the
tracker.

- Alan -

Section 5.1:

The first time the bnc parameter is introduced, it might be worth
explaining it stands for Bulk Number Contact - the first time I read it
I thought it stood for Bayonet Neill-Concelman...

Section 5.1:

There are a couple of "must"s that probably are "MUST"s.

Section 5.2:

There is some justification why the SIP-PBX MUST support Path, but none
is given here why the Registrar MUST support it.  Is it for the same reason?

Section 5.2:

While the SIP-PBX MUST include Proxy-Require:gin, it is possible a
registration might arrive at a Registrar with a bnc but no
Proxy-Require:gin.  Should we define the correct behavior of the
Registrar for this case?

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:02:59 -0500

> I thought it stood for Bayonet Neill-Concelman...

Good point.

> There are a couple of "must"s that probably are "MUST"s.

That's correct -- these are in the tracker.

> is given here why the Registrar MUST support it.  Is it for the same reason?

Yes. Unless the registrar supports it, including support in the PBX 
isn't particularly useful.

> Proxy-Require:gin.  Should we define the correct behavior of the

How would that happen?

/a

---

From: Alan Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:43:18 -0500

>> Proxy-Require:gin.  Should we define the correct behavior of the

Could be misconfiguration or other error.  Or someone might turn off
Proxy-Require in order to get the registration to work through some ALG
or proxy.

I guess I'm asking if the Registrar should process or reject a bnc
registration if the Proxy-Require isn't present.

- Alan -

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:34:40 -0500

> Proxy-Require in order to get the registration to work through some ALG

I don't think we need to make explicit accommodations for failures borne 
of attempts to defeat the protocol itself.

> registration if the Proxy-Require isn't present.

I don't think so. If the Registrar isn't proxying the request, then it 
should ignore "Proxy-Require" as vigorously as possible.

/a

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:41:10 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alan Johnston
> Sent: 19 July 2010 20:43
> To: Adam Roach
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [martini] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-martini-gin
> 
> 
> 
[JRE] One could also ask the same question about the absence of Require. I believe it is unusual to specify that an entity that supports extension X must check for the absence of Require/Proxy-Require: X. The purpose of those header fields is to force an entity that does NOT support extension X to exhibit a certain behaviour. The bnc contact URI parameter is the important item of information for a registrar that supports gin.

John

> 
> - Alan -
> 
> 
> > 
> > /a
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> martini mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
>

---

From: Alan Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:17:47 -0500

> [JRE] One could also ask the same question about the absence of Require. I believe it is unusual to specify that an entity that supports extension X must check for the absence of Require/Proxy-Requ…

Require is probably more relevant than Proxy-Require.  I agree with your
answer - the Registrar looks for the presence of the bnc parameter.

- Alan -