MARTINI WG IETF 78 Mintes Chairs: Bernard Aboba Spencer Dawkins Thursday, July 29, 2010 09:00 - 11:30 2.1 Colorado Room 09:00 - 9:10, Preliminaries Note Well Note Takers: Paul Kyzivat and Cullen Jennings, with help from Adam Roach Jabber scribe Agenda bash Document Status Solution Updates MARTINI with Globally Identifiable Numbers, Adam Roach (40 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-martini-gin Went over changes and open issues: Ticket 48 updates the requirements analysis in the GIN document (Appendix A) so as to keep in sync with changes made to the requirements document. The changes have no impact on the GIN solution. Adam proposes to align the appendix A by changing text that quotes the requirements doc to be consistent with the final version of the requirements doc. Proposal by Cullen and Hadriel to just drop appendix A. John and Adam are happy to remove it. Keith would like it to remain. Decision is to keep it and change the text so as to match the requirements document. No objection to the recommended resolution of Issues 4 and 5. Ticket 49: nits. Changes accepted. Keith requested consistency on a number of other nits. He was asked to report them on the list. He agreed. Ticket 50: propose to update inline with suggestions in the ticket. Query made if any objections to the proposed resolution. There were none. Ticket 51: ticket submitter proposed one resolution, Adam proposes to do the contrary – reject BNC contact with user part. Discussion of pros/cons of the alternative. Keith and Cullen argued for being strict, and Hadriel agreed. That approach (consistent with the slide) was agreed: incorrect URI will cause rejection. Ticket 54: Keith objected to use of "non-bnc URI" without definition. Adam agrees to fix that, make it clear what is intended. Everywhere we have BNC before another term, it needs to be defined. On this issue in #54 reword to be "URI without a BNC" Ticket 55: regarding prohibition of "bnc" parameter in reg event bodies. Questions/objections of how this prohibition applies to reg event extensions. It was agreed to modify the proposed text - "after "bnc" parameter" add "in an extension". Ticket 56: about security review. Discussion of what the error code should be. Adam proposes using an existing 500 class response to indicate an overload condition. Agreed on Proposal #1 and #2. Will return an existing 500 class response. Ticket 57: This issue relates to temporary GRUUs. Should support be mandatory for SSPs? Three options offered: completely optional; mandatory to implement & optional to use; mandatory to use GIN at all. Should it be mandatory for an SSP implementing GIN to supply a public GRUU when requested by the registering PBX? Hadriel argued at length for optionality. Cullen argued strongly for mandatory to implement for public GRUU. Keith Drage (@1:07:41): "Yeah, but I mean, I mean I think we had an almost formal words at the microphone which basically were saying: 'If you're asked for a GRUU, then implementors of GIN must provide one. Public GRUU.'" Hadriel Kaplan: "The *SSP* must provide one." Adam Roach: "Yes." Hadriel Kaplan: "Right." Adam Roach: "Yes." Hadriel Kaplan: "If it said 'Supported: gin'." Adam Roach: "Yes." Hadriel Kaplan: "Check." Adam Roach: "Okay." Hadriel Kaplan: "Okay." Adam Roach: "Good." Cullen Jennings (@1:08:12): "Okay, so here's what I recorded for minutes: 'If the PBX asks for a GRUU and it supports GIN, the the SSP must return one.' Okay? Fair enough summary?" Adam Roach: "That sounds like a good summary." Paul Kyzivat (backup minute taker): "I've got words similar to that." Adam Roach: "So I think we have public GRUU nailed down." Then discussion moved to temp GRUU. Debate among Cullen Jennings and Hadriel Kaplan. Cullen argues for support of confidentiality – need to support anonymous calls. He would accept some other mechanism than temp GRUU if someone can propose it for inclusion in this draft. Andrew Allen supports for fear that some other system likely to mangle public GRUUs. Hadriel asserted that he sells boxes that do this without use of temp GRUU. Bernard Aboba noted that GRUU support (both public and temporary) is covered by REQ16 in the requirements document: REQ16 - The mechanism MUST allow the SIP-PBX to provide its UAs with public or temporary Globally Routable UA URIs (GRUUs) [RFC5627]. However, this requirement is phrased as "MUST allow" and only applies to PBXes, not SSPs. John Ewell was concerned that that mandating support by SSPs might raise the bar too high and discourage SSPs from implementing GIN. Keith was concerned that we are having a requirements document in the context of the gin draft – that people who want new requirement should be making a bis version of the requirements document. T here was suggestion to split the ticket, into the part about pub gruu and a separate one about private calls. Request for Cullen to file that ticket. Proposal for interested parties to go off between now and next session at 3 and try to figure this out. Will pick it up then. Individual Submissions (60 minutes) Other Logical Identifier Values (OLIVE), Hadriel Kaplan http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaplan-martini-with-olive Hadriel gave summary. There were a number of clarifying questions. John wanted to know if this is service that SSPs would want to provide. Adam observed that its perfectly reasonable to assume the SSP could host your own domain name and then arbitrary user names within that domain name. Then got on to local numbers. Cullen suggests splitting this into separate drafts for alphanumeric user names and local numbers because. About 10 people in the room thought it was worth solving the "Bob@example.com" problem – alphanumeric user names. This is simply guidance to hadriel about his authoring of private drafts. There was a sughgestion to work on two separate documents: one for email-style addresses (e.g. "bob@example.com') and the other for numeric addresses (but not E.164 numbers): "1234". MARTINI Event Package for Registration (VERMOUTH), Hadriel Kaplan http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaplan-martini-vermouth Hadriel gave an overview. Normal subscription get routed to the PBX. Presented two alternatives – use reg-event with extensions or a new event package. John Elwell questioned if SIP is right for this. Andrew Allen also preferred new event package because semantics are different. Cullen Jennings gave another reason – authorization rules are different. There seemed to be general support for a new event package. Thursday, July 29, 2010 15:10 - 16:10 This session was just to clear up the temp-gruu issue. People had worked in the intervening time and had proposed text which was displayed on a slide. After brief discussion, the room was polled about this new text. Result was 12-0 in favor, which was considered to be consensus. The group then adjourned.