Subject: [Enum] VOVI draft 'voice:sip' enumservice

From: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:26:40 +0000

Hi Folks,
   (Thread re-named - I assume that this is the issue ?)

How does the enumservice 'voice:sip' in the vovi draft break SIP?
I'm bemused, as it works for me - I've used it.

My SIP hard 'phone is a single function device; it can be plugged in
pretty much anywhere and registers itself with a SIP Service Provider.
In the "real world", for some of the voice services provided, they
expect to be paid. As Scott Petrack discovered, "the IETF doesn't do
Business Relationships", so consider this an aside to explain why I
have two service-specific accounts.

My VirtualPC fires up and handles only IM - it doesn't have a microphone
connected so it doesn't support RTC. It registers itself with another
SIP Service Provider; this fine bunch don't have my credit card info.
Until I can fathom out how to get a microphone and RTC working in
VirtualPC, the capability of the device(s) behind this SIP registration
is not going to change soon either.

These *ARE* single function devices - whilst there are a lot of people
"out there" with multi-function devices (e.g. .NET Messenger with RTC
and IM support), those of us with hard 'phones have a defined service
profile; this will not change short of re-flashing the 'phone. This is
not a highly dynamic entry, at least not anytime soon.

Note that even if I register several 'phones with the same AoR, they're
all just voice terminals. I had thought that what goes into ENUM is the
AoR, not the individual contact URIs. However, I've been convinced that
a contact URI would work as well; I learn.

Thus, if you try to IM to this 'phone, you will waste your time. It
doesn't support T.38 so you can't fax to it - it just does voice. If I
as a Registrant want to give a hint that you will only be successful if
you do an INVITE with a voice media offer, then I can't see how this
breaks SIP, or is even unhelpful.

If any ENUM client wants to treat 'voice:sip' -as if it were- 'sip',
that's fine. Support for this enumservice consists solely of ignoring
the hint and treating it as a standard 'sip' enumservice.

Of course, anything to the account I have registered my 'phone with other
than an INVITE with a voice media offer will be rejected . The 'phone
fully supports 3261 but does not engage in all possible (non-media)
sessions. It's a 'phone.

Similarly, if anyone wants to try to INVITE my Virtual PC to a voice
session, it will be rejected. It's also 3261 compliant, but only handles
an IM session, due to my incompetence.

Now, if anyone thinks that giving this hint is a BAD choice on the part
of the registrant, that's a valid opinion, and there are many privacy
issues with ENUM that we need to spell out (not just in this draft) so
that folks can make informed choices on the information they publish.
No-one is forced to publish information that they don't want the world
to know - we have the 'I'm not telling you any more information here'
enumservices as well.

I still don't understand how this draft is not aligned with IETF
standards, specifically 3261. I'm willing to believe that SIP with
CallerPrefs could allow a client to negotiate a kind of service;
I'm a little surprised that support for this is REQUIRED as the only
solution if we're to avoid extended offer/rejection cycles.

all the best,
    Lawrence
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roke Manor Research    : This information is provided "as is" and is not
<mailto:[email-masked]>: intended to create any contractual or legal
<tel:+441794833666>    : relationship.
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:39:41 +0200

lawrence,

 > solution if we're to avoid extended offer/rejection cycles.

there are several sip ways to tell what capabilities my UA has.  here is
how my multifunction "phone" registers:

REGISTER sip:sip.song.fi SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 195.10.149.20
CSeq: 26 REGISTER
To: "Juha Heinanen" <sip:[email-masked]>
Expires: 0
From: "Juha Heinanen" <sip:[email-masked]>
Call-ID: [email-masked]
Content-Length: 0
User-Agent: KPhone/3.0
Event: registration
Allow-Events: presence
Contact: "Juha Heinanen" <sip:[email-masked];transport=udp>;methods="INVITE, MESSAGE, INFO, SUBSCRIBE, OPTIONS, BYE, CANCEL, NOTIFY, ACK"

the registration thus tells that the device supports invites and some
other methods.  i don't need to list that info in enum.

-- juha

---

From: Michael Haberler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:01:46 +0100

sorry for the stupid question, but:

Is ENUM intended to resolve only into SIP endpoints and SIP controlled 
services?

If yes, Juha has a point, but then I dont see it that way

educate me

-Michael

At 14:39 07.03.2003 +0200, [email-masked] wrote:

>Contact: "Juha Heinanen" 
><sip:[email-masked];transport=udp>;methods="INVITE, MESSAGE, INFO, 
>SUBSCRIBE, OPTIONS, BYE, CANCEL, NOTIFY, ACK"
>

---

From: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:48:28 +0000

Hi Michael, Juha, Folks,

This is a SIPPING issue, so I mention it only in passing on the ENUM list;
  we seem to be having confusion over 'Service' or even 'Method' 
versus 'Teleservice'.
  I suggest that SIPPING is the list for discussions on how a SIP Registrant
  AND a SIP Caller can specify the ->Teleservices<- they support or in which
  they want to engage. Let's just take it as read that they can by some means.

As for whether or not ENUM is intended only for resolution to SIP endpoints
(or intermediaries that support/hide the end point):
  Unless I'm instructed that this is the case, I don't see that.
  We have tel: URIs in several of the enumservices.
  These might end up as SIP end points (or H323 ones), but they may not. The
  GSTN is still working, and "steam phones" or handys may end up as 
ENUM-published
  targets.

Thus the re-name for this thread - I ASSUME that the issue is only with whether
or not 'voice:sip' or 'video:sip' breaks SIP or is unusable/unhelpful.

If anyone thinks that the other parts of the drafts will not work, please
holler.

all the best,
   Lawrence

At 2:01 pm +0100 7/3/03, Michael Haberler wrote:
>Is ENUM intended to resolve only into SIP endpoints and SIP 
>controlled services?
At 14:39 07.03.2003 +0200, [email-masked] wrote:
<juha shows a SIP registration>