Subject: 3rd party registration (was RE: [Sip] SIP MIB ietf-sip-mib comments)

From: "Michael Procter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 14:53:59 +0100

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> sipRegAlloowThirdParty - there are two definitions in common 
> usage for 3rd
> party reg. This is one of them. However, I don't know of any 
> deployment
> situations that allow this type of 3rd party reg. It is the 
> other type that
> are allowed in practice. Do we need to this at all? Do we 
> need to update?

At the risk of raising a tangent, this form of 3rd Party
Registration (that is to say when the To header differs from
the From header in the REGISTER) is used in the current
Bridged Line Appearance draft (draft-anil-sipping-bla-02).

Jonathan Rosenburg mentioned on this list (Dec 15, 2005) that
draft-ietf-sip-outbound breaks 3rd party registrations, but
I can't find the paragraph in the draft that states this after
a brief reading.  Para 4.2.1 appears to relate to the *other*
meaning of 3rd party registration.

Regards,

Michael Procter

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "Alan Hawrylyshen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 08:06:46 -0600

> meaning of 3rd party registration.

Well, by binding an AoR to a 'flow', the outbound draft effectively limits
your ability to register a contact URI that get fair RFC3263 treatment, and
therefore, makes 3rd party registration significantly more challenging. (The
association between your flow and the AoR that gets made using the outbound
mechanism may not be what you want for 3pr).

Alan Hawrylyshen

--
> --
> a d o t h a w r y l y s h e n a t g m a i l d o t c o m

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:22:56 -0700

This is way off track of anything to do with the MIB but ...

We have two definitions of 3rd party reg. One is To != From. The other is
that contact != source of the REGISTER message is coming from.

Outbound does not work for contact = source case meaning that the extra
things outbound provides won't work in this case - however it does not make
that case any worse than it is today. Outbound works fine with the To !=
>From case.

I will note that nothing to do with outbound, the contact != source is the
cause of the huge DOS attacks that Robert, Alan, Et Al point out in their
drafts. If we required CONSENT from the consent framework when doing contact
!= source, well it would solve the DOS problem.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:42:28 -0700

Fixing a very confusing typo I put in message below - thanks to Spencer for
catching my blunder

On 4/5/06 9:22 AM, "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We have two definitions of 3rd party reg. One is To != From. The other is that
> contact != source of the REGISTER message is coming from.
> 
> Outbound does not work for contact = source case meaning that the extra things
This should have been contact != source - sorry

> outbound provides won't work in this case - however it does not make that case
> any worse than it is today. Outbound works fine with the To != From case.
>