Subject: [Sip] lack of clarity around handling mixed sip:/sips: registrations

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:47:42 -0500

A question arose at SIPIT 16 around whether a registrar was required
to reject a sips: contact registered against a sip: URI, and whether
it was required to reject a sip: contact registered against a sips: URI.
The spec is silent on this. I propose that we capture a bug to discuss 
these
situations, note that they are allowed (my strawman suggestion), and 
point
to the constraints on how those registered contacts might get _used_. 
(The
answer there is probably different for issuing a 3xx or choosing to 
proxy).

Similarly, questions arose to what a proxy server should do with such
things discovered from a location service. The spec is fairly clear 
about
not using a sip: contact when processing a sips: URI at a proxy. It does
not discuss the bad things that happen if you use a sips: contact when
processing a sip: URI. I propose we have another bug that introduces
such a discussion.

Is this captured somewhere already that we missed?

RjS

_______________________________________________
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: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:29:43 -0400

Robert,

Jonathan and I have been informally discussing this off and on for a 
couple of meetings. Remember that Jonathan mentioned this at the last 
meeting as it relates to GRUU. He finessed it there - just leaving the 
real definition as being whatever ultimately gets decided in general.

I'm not aware of it being formally tracked anywhere.

	Paul

Robert Sparks wrote:
> situations, note that they are allowed (my strawman suggestion), and point
> to the constraints on how those registered contacts might get _used_. (The
> answer there is probably different for issuing a 3xx or choosing to proxy).
> 
> things discovered from a location service. The spec is fairly clear about
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:33:10 -0400

Right. I think we probably need a separate document that acts as an 
update to rfc3261 whose role is to specify the necessary level of depth 
on sips.

Some of the questions that it needs to answer are:

Identity

   relationship of a sip and sips URI from an identity perspective

REGISTER handling

   do you need to register to both sip and sips AOR?
   can you have a sip contact against a sips AOR and vice a versa?
   what does it mean for the r-uri to be a sips URI?

Dialog Initiating Requests/responses

   if you send a request to a SIPS URI, does the contact need to contain 
a sips URI? From?

   if you receive a request send to a sips URI, what do you put in the 
200 OK contact?

Proxy Processing

   DNS SRV/NAPTR interactions
   interactions with location services and URI translation
   interactions with loose routing - what route URIs can you put in or not
   redirection - can you redirect to a non-sips URI?

I'd also like to revisit the decision that you can use things besides 
TLS so long as they are secure. At this point I think we should mandate 
tls for sips.

Some of this is described in rfc3261 but much is not. I don't think its 
exceptionally hard to figure this out, but it needs some thought and 
most importantly needs to be documented.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com