Open-plan Local-number Identifier Values for Enterprises (OLIVE) draft-kaplan-martini-with-olive-02 Hadriel Kaplan.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MARTINI WG Interim draft-ietf-martini-reqs-04 John Elwell Hadriel Kaplan (editors)
Advertisements

MARTINI WG Interim draft-kaplan-martini-with-olive-00 Hadriel Kaplan.
Indication of support for keep- alive draft-holmberg-sip-keep-03 Christer Holmberg
SIP Interconnect Guidelines draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-02 David Hancock, Daryl Malas.
IPv6 Near-Unique Site Local Addresses draft-francis-ipngwg-unique-site-local-00.txt.
1 5 th SDO Emergency Services Workshop October 2008 “sos” URI parameter for marking emergency requests Milan Patel 5 th SDO Emergency Services Workshop.
SIP Working Group Stuff Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
1 CPCP Hisham Khartabil XCON WG IETF 60, San Diego 2 nd August, 2004
Identifying intra-realm calls with explicit addressing realm identifier attribute François AUDET SIPPING WG Meeting IETF-57.
Using XACML Policies to Express OAuth Scope Hal Lockhart Oracle June 27, 2013.
9,825,461,087,64 10,91 6,00 0,00 8,00 SIP Identity Usage in Enterprise Scenarios IETF #64 Vancouver, 11/2005 draft-fries-sipping-identity-enterprise-scenario-01.txt.
DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM. Introduction  There are several applications that follow client server paradigm.  The client/server programs can be divided into.
Kosovo (Under UNSCR 1244) Statistical Training Prosecution / Courts Session 5, October 7 th, – Overview of the Criminal Justice System and.
GRUU Mechanism Jonathan Rosenberg. Status Draft-rosenberg-sipping-gruu-reqs-01 defines the problem Draft-rosenberg-sip-gruu submitted with proposed solution.
Identity in SIP (and in-band) STIR BoF Berlin, DE 7/30/2013.
1 SIP WG meeting 73rd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA November, 2008 Return Routability Check draft-kuthan-sip-derive-00 Jiri
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF)‏ IETF 74, March 2009, San Francisco, CA (USA)‏ Vijay K. Gurbani Eric Burger Humberto Abdelnur.
Requirements for DSML 2.0. Summary RFC 2251 fidelity Represent existing directory protocols with new transport syntax Backwards compatibility with DSML.
6rd Sunsetting Mark Townsley, Alexandre Cassen. Operational procedures and CE requirements for incremental migration from 6rd to Native IPv6 Presumes.
Project Name Description (optional). Template (Remove this Slide) General template for describing and/or selling a project. Provides context to the audience.
A GENERIC PROCESS FOR REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING Chapter 2 1 These slides are prepared by Enas Naffar to be used in Software requirements course - Philadelphia.
WebDAV Issues Munich IETF August 11, Property URL encoding At present, spec. allows encoding of the name of a property so it can be appended to.
RFC5296BIS CHANGES PROPOSAL Sebastien Decugis. Presentation outline  Quick reminder on ERP (RFC5296)  2 change proposals  Problem description  Solution.
© 2012 IBM Corporation Best Practices for Publishing RDF Vocabularies Arthur Ryman,
Identities and Network Access Identifier in M2M Page 1 © GPP2 3GPP2 and its Organizational Partners claim copyright in this document and individual.
Author(s) Politehnica University of Bucharest Automatic Control and Computers Faculty Computer Science Department Implementation of GRUU in SIP Vladut-Stefan.
Certificate Credentials STIR WG IETF 91 (Honolulu) Sean Jon.
IETF 77 MARTINI WG draft-ietf-martini-reqs-02 John Elwell Hadriel Kaplan (editors)
November 2005IETF64 - ECRIT1 Emergency Service Identifiers draft-ietf-sipping-sos-01 draft-schulzrinne-sipping-service-01 Henning Schulzrinne Columbia.
Precedence Health Care The MAS – SE Gap: Bridging the Divide Michael Georgeff Precedence Health Care & Monash University Autonomous Agents and Multiagent.
4395bis irireg Tony Hansen, Larry Masinter, Ted Hardie IETF 82, Nov 16, 2011.
Draft-elwell-sipping- redirection-reason-00 Author: John Elwell
IMS 架構與話務分析 網路管理維運資源中心 日期 : 2013/07/25 網路管理維運資源中心 日期 : 2013/07/25 限閱.
Security, NATs and Firewalls Ingate Systems. Basics of SIP Security.
1 SIPREC Recording Metadata for SRS (draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-03) July 28, 2011 IETF 81 meeting Ram Mohan R On behalf of the team Team: Paul Kyzivat,
IETF 79 - Beijing, China1 Martini Working Group IETF 79 Beijing Chairs: Bernard Spencer
SIP INFO Event Framework (draft-kaplan-sip-info-events-00) Hadriel Kaplan Christer Holmberg 70th IETF, Vancouver, Canada.
Patrik Fältström. ITU Tutorial Workshop on ENUM. Feb 8, 2002, Geneva Explanation of ENUM (RFC 2916) Patrik Fältström Area Director, Applications Area,
Caller Prefs and Friends Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
SER Module Speaker: Chin-Chang Chang Date:
ECRIT - Getting Certain URIs, and Alternatives to Getting Emergency Dialstring(s) draft-polk-ecrit-lost-server-uri-00 draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-uri-psap-esrp-00.
Open issues from SIP list Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
VERMOUTH for MARTINI SIP MARTINI Variant of 'Event-package for Registrations‘ for Managed Open-ended Username Target Handling (VERMOUTH) draft-kaplan-martini-vermouth-00.
Component Patterns – Architecture and Applications with EJB copyright © 2001, MATHEMA AG Component Patterns Architecture and Applications with EJB Markus.
SIP PUBLISH Method Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
- 1 -P. Kyzivatdraft-sipping-gruu-reg-event-00 Reg Event Package Extensions draft-sipping-gruu-reg-event-00 IETF64 Nov-2005.
RFC3261 (Almost) Robert Sparks. SIPiT 10 2 Status of the New SIP RFC Passed IETF Last Call In the RFC Editor queue Author’s 48 hours review imminent IMPORTANT:
March 20, 2007BLISS BOF IETF-681 Requirements and Implementation Options for the Multiple Line Appearance Feature using the Session Initiation Protocol.
MSRP Again! draft-ietf-simple-message- session-09.
Call Completion using BFCP draft-roach-sipping-callcomp-bfcp IETF 67 – San Diego November 7, 2006.
Caller Preferences Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Copyright © 2004, Keith D Swenson, All Rights Reserved. OASIS Asynchronous Service Access Protocol (ASAP) Tutorial Overview, OASIS ASAP TC May 4, 2004.
History-Info header and Support of target-uri Solution Requirements Mary Barnes Francois Audet SIPCORE.
GIN with Literal AoRs for SIP in SSPs (GLASS) draft-kaplan-martini-glass-00 Hadriel Kaplan.
Unit-6 Handling Sessions and Cookies. Concept of Session Session values are store in server side not in user’s machine. A session is available as long.
Andrew Allen ROUTING OUT OF DIALOG REQUESTS draft-allen-dispatch-routing-out-of-dialog-request-01 Dispatch IETF 92 March 23 rd 2015.
Globally Identifiable Number (GIN) Registration Adam Roach draft-martini-roach-gin-01 IETF 77 – Anaheim, CA, USA March 22, 2010.
Location Routing Function Requirements Hadriel Kaplan
SIP connection tracking
Bosnia & Herzegovina Statistical Training
sip-identity-04 Added new response codes for various conditions
Katrin Hoeper Channel Bindings Katrin Hoeper
Phone numbers and dial strings
draft-ietf-simple-message-session-09
Requirements and Implementation Options for the Multiple Line Appearance Feature using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) draft-johnston-bliss-mla-req-00.
Chris Wendt, David Hancock (Comcast)
Factorization.
WebDAV Design Overview
Handling YANG Revisions – Discussion Kickoff
Presentation transcript:

Open-plan Local-number Identifier Values for Enterprises (OLIVE) draft-kaplan-martini-with-olive-02 Hadriel Kaplan

The Problem Draft-gin handles E.164 So how do we handle Local Numbers?

“Local Numbers” Technically RFC 3966 defines “Local Numbers” –The phone-context param defines the scope of the user portion, and the users and any other params are only known to the authority of that context In practice, things aren’t that simple –the Local-Number syntax is only followed in specific cases; e.g., only within the SSP –the “dial-plan” and knowledge of params is not consistently nor fully in one spot –the scoping model of RFC 3966 creates two tiers of scoping: URI-user and URI level

Two ways to handle it How would this “work” if the IP-PBX sent separate, explicit REGISTERs? –In Martini we only care about IP-PBX case –We need a way to REGISTER for a Local-Number Two ways it could have explicitly REGISTERed for a Local-Number: 1.It REGISTERed to a specific Domain: e.g., sip:enterprise.com or sip:enterprise.priv.ssp.com 2.It REGISTERed the AoR: e.g.,

So… The first way (Register to an explicit domain) doesn’t need a new draft –Just have the IP-PBX REGISTER to that domain, separately from “public” numbers –IP-PBX uses a contact param to segregate inbound requests, if that’s an issue The second way (Register the AoR) is what draft-olive describes –It can just re-use the draft-gin REGISTER, because there’s no name collision or confusion, so long as the whole user portion remains intact to the IP-PBX

What this means… The Request-URI reaching the PBX, and presumably any coming from it for a private plan, would be expressed as a rfc3966 Local-Number Is that reasonable? –I think so – it has to be distinguished somehow –It could be done with yet-another-header, but what would we set the Request-URI to anyway?

Example PBX does a draft-gin REGISTER SSP has provisioning for *;phone- context=+5 goes to pbx123 OriginatorSSPPBX INVITE INVITE REGISTER sip:ssp.com To: Contact:

Open Issues

Non-context Local Numbers But what if the PBX doesn’t know about this “phone-context” stuff? –It’s as if the PBX registered – it’s just a username to it –But not really, because may overlap with other Enterprises Possible solutions: –Describe it as a transformation step, to remove phone-context –Or require registering to a unique domain name (e.g., enterprise.ssp.com)

Other Open Issues Vermouth handling (how to check the list of AoRs on the Registrar) –Can’t have a simple syntax, because names aren’t fully known by registrar –Answer: use wildcarding What to do about Local-Number user parameters –Some are processed by SSP, some by PBX –In theory only the authority of the phone-context knows what to do with them, but who is that authority??