Re: [BLISS] draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances: Provisioningconsiderations

Venkatesh

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Francois Audet <audet at nortel.com> wrote:

Yes, of course HelpDesk could be the Boss instead.

From: Venkatesh [mailto:vvenkatar at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 08:46
To: Hutton, Andrew
Cc: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Alan Johnston; bliss at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BLISS] draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances: Provisioningconsiderations

Andrew:

Thanks for pointing it out. I missed the change as well. Honestly, one of the main use cases for BLA/SLA was to address a boss/secretary scenario. In these cases, the secretary is really monitoring a "Boss" extension; so from a "ownership" purpose, the AoR is really that of the boss and not a "common" address.

Venkatesh

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton at siemens-enterprise.com> wrote:

Indeed this getting interesting.

In version -02 the REGISTER in section 10.1 showed a normal 1st party
registration by alice but -03 shows a third party registration which is
a significant change.

I must admit I missed the text in -02 which stated "Bob and Alice are in
an appearance group identified by Alice's AOR. Bob REGISTERs using
contact sip:bob at ua2.example.com" and I should have commented on that
earlier.

As the draft is about sharing appearances of a single AOR then surely
third party registration is not necessary as it could be that there is
simply two helpdesk phones using a single AOR and there is no "alice" or
"bob" AOR's. So in the simplest case the REGISTER would be:

REGISTER sip:registrar.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ua1.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK527b54da8ACC7B09
From: <sip:HelpDesk at example.com>;tag=CDF9A668-909E2BDD
To: <sip:HelpDesk at example.com>
CSeq: 2 REGISTER
Call-ID: d3281184-518783de-cc23d6bb
Contact: <sip:HelpDesk at ua1.example.com>

Regards
Andy

>-----Original Message-----
>From: bliss-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:bliss-bounces at ietf.org]
>On Behalf Of Francois Audet
>Sent: 14 July 2009 23:30
>To: Alan Johnston
>Cc: bliss at ietf.org
>Subject: [BLISS] draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances:
>Provisioningconsiderations
>
>
>> > Section 9:
>> >
>> > Delete first paragraph.
>> >
>> > Clarify the UA also REGISTERs to the AOR. Discuss the
>> security implications, i.e.,
>> > you either use the same shared username/password, or you
>> use a different username/password
>> > for HTTP digest, per user. Perhaps the security
>> considerations can be described in section 15.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I added text about authorization for third party registrations and
>> publication. A little more text on this would be helpful.
>
>Ah-ah... Now we are getting down to business.
>
>I am now looking at new section 10.1 on registration, and I see that
>you are using indeed third-party registration (with To=HelpDesk,
>From=Alice).
>
>So, this would be one way to to it.
>
>Another way would be to NOT use third-party registration at all. In
>other words, Alice would send a first party registration on behalf
>of HelpDesk (ie.., To=HelpDesk, From=Alice).
>
>Wouldn't that work?
>
>Then there is the whole issue of authentication with HTTP-Digest.
>I guess one could use username="HelpDesk". In this case, the
>idea is that
>Alice would need to know the credentials for HelpDesk.
>Another way would be to use username="alice" instead (i.e.,
>her own credentials).
>The decisions on which authentication you use would depend on
>need of the
>administrator.
>
>Have you tought about this? Am I off based?
>_______________________________________________
>BLISS mailing list
>BLISS at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
>
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
BLISS at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss