Re: : Issue: differences betweern 3GPP SIP usage and Diam eter SIP document

Understoo the motivation of the PPR command. So can you please file a 
separate issue only for it? We will fix it during the IETF last call.

/Miguel

German Blanco (E2/EEM) wrote:
>>- In the PPR in the draft User-Data is mandatory, in the Cx 
>>it is optional.
>>
>>The only semantics associated to the PPR command is to push a new 
>>version of the User Profile contained in the SIP-User-Data 
>>AVP. Thus, I 
>>understand that this AVP is mandatory, otherwise you either 
>>don't send 
>>the PPR or you are sending it for other reasons that have no 
>>semantics 
>>associated. It would be good to understand the motivation behind this.
> 
> 
> Motivation is that if only the charging addresses included in 
> SIP-Accounting-Information change, then there will be no need to send
> the profile in the SIP-User-Data.
> 
> 
>>may want to use other mechanisms in the future. I don't 
>>understand the 
>>reason why Cx makes this optional.
> 
> 
> I don't understand that either.  Personally, at this moment, I think
> it is an error in 29.229 that should be fixed.
> 
> I think it would be good to make sure that the differences are justified
> before producing two different protocols for the same purpose.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> German.
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Miguel Garcia [mailto:[email protected]]
>>Sent: jueves, 27 de octubre de 2005 12:22
>>To: German Blanco (E2/EEM)
>>Cc: Jari Arkko; [email protected]
>>Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: Issue: differences betweern 3GPP SIP usage and
>>Diam eter SIP document
>>
>>
>>So it would be good to understand why 3GPP has made optional 
>>some AVPs, 
>>especially when the Diameter SIP application was designed upon the Cx 
>>interface in 3GPP. In other words, 3GPP at some point in time has 
>>changed, and I don't know why.
>>
>>I just picked up a couple of examples:
>>
>>- In the PPR in the draft User-Data is mandatory, in the Cx 
>>it is optional.
>>
>>The only semantics associated to the PPR command is to push a new 
>>version of the User Profile contained in the SIP-User-Data 
>>AVP. Thus, I 
>>understand that this AVP is mandatory, otherwise you either 
>>don't send 
>>the PPR or you are sending it for other reasons that have no 
>>semantics 
>>associated. It would be good to understand the motivation behind this.
>>
>>- In SIP-Auth-Data-Item SIP-Authentication-Scheme is 
>>mandatory, in the 
>>Cx it is optional.
>>
>>Yes, this is done on purpose. We always need to identify the 
>>authentication scheme, becuase that authentication scheme 
>>determines the 
>>AVPs that will may be included in the SIP-Auth-Data-Item AVP. At the 
>>moment only Digest is supported as an aunthentication 
>>mechanism, but we 
>>may want to use other mechanisms in the future. I don't 
>>understand the 
>>reason why Cx makes this optional.
>>
>>Shall I continue? I think for each of these differences we need to 
>>understand that motivation behind 3GPP for the action.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>         Miguel
>>
>>
>>
>>German Blanco (E2/EEM) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Miguel,
>>>
>>>note that in most of the cases, the AVPs that are listed 
>>
>>are optional
>>
>>>in Cx and mandatory in the draft, and not the other way 
>>
>>around (which
>>
>>>would be no problem).  That means the draft is in some way more 
>>>restrictive than the Cx.
>>>
>>>And the intention in Cx is to allow other authentication 
>>
>>schemas, or 
>>
>>>at least to be based on a protocol that allows other authentication 
>>>schemas, that is why the SIP-Authentication-Scheme is there.
>>>
>>>German.
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Miguel Garcia [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>Sent: miércoles, 26 de octubre de 2005 17:22
>>>To: Jari Arkko
>>>Cc: [email protected]; German Blanco (E2/EEM)
>>>Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: Issue: differences betweern 3GPP SIP 
>>
>>usage and
>>
>>>Diameter SIP document
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you want me to reply one by one to all these differences?
>>>
>>>Most of the are related to "this AVP is mandatory here and optional 
>>>there", and the reason is because 3GPP Cx assumes that 
>>
>>there is only 
>>
>>>IMS-AKA authentication, where the UE sends an unsolicited 
>>
>>Authorization 
>>
>>>header in the first SIP request. This is not the case for a 
>>
>>regular SIP 
>>
>>>client in SIP, which works like in HTTP. So in most cases 
>>
>>there is not 
>>
>>>going to be an unsoliciated Authorization header, there is 
>>
>>not going to 
>>
>>>be a realm, username, etc...
>>>
>>>I think I don't have the time to comment one by one all the 
>>
>>issues. The 
>>
>>>only think I can say is that there was a reason why we 
>>
>>relaxed the Cx 
>>
>>>mandatoriness of AVPs, and there are reasons why we added 
>>
>>new AVPs, and 
>>
>>>most of these reasons come from moving a Diameter 
>>
>>application that works 
>>
>>>in a controlled environment (such an IMS) to support the 
>>
>>public Internet
>>
>>>/Miguel
>>>
>>>Jari Arkko wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I know I'm late with this wrt WGLC, but my colleague made a list
>>>>of differences between what's in the Diameter SIP document
>>>>and what 3GPP Cx interface does.
>>>>
>>>>Please see the list below. I realize that a standard spec
>>>>may not match what someone else has been doing before
>>>>and there's bound to be extensions, things done in a better
>>>>way, etc.
>>>>
>>>>However, I'd like circulate this list just to make sure that
>>>>we understand what these differences are, and to make
>>>>sure that these are intended differences and not accidental
>>>>differences that will make it harder for 3GPP to switch to
>>>>a IETF standard later (if they even want to, but that's
>>>>another discussion).
>>>>
>>>>Bigger differences:
>>>>
>>>>- DIAMETER_ERROR_USER_UNKNOWN is used when the User-Name is not
>>>>known in the draft, but in Cx when either the User-Name or the
>>>>public identity is not known.
>>>>
>>>>- In the draft, the Authentication Pending flag is cleared in the
>>>>MAR. In the Cx, it is cleared in the SAR.
>>>>
>>>>- In the draft, the SIP Server is stored in the MAR in some cases.
>>>>In the Cx, it is only stored in the SAR.
>>>>
>>>>- In the PPR in the draft User-Data is mandatory,
>>>>in the Cx it is optional.
>>>>
>>>>- In SIP-Auth-Data-Item SIP-Authentication-Scheme is mandatory,
>>>>in the Cx it is optional.
>>>>
>>>>- SIP-User-Data is a Grouped with two mandatory AVPs in the draft,
>>>>in the Cx it is an OctetString that contains the XML data.
>>>>
>>>>- In all responses in the draft Result-Code is mandatory,
>>>>in the Cx it is optional as an alternative to Experimental-Result
>>>>
>>>>- In all draft commands there is a mandatory Auth-Application-Id,
>>>>in the Cx there is a mandatory Vendor-Specific-Application-Id.
>>>>
>>>>Minor differences:
>>>>
>>>>- In UAR and MAR in the draft User-Name is optional,
>>>>in the Cx it is mandatory. The draft specifies an error for when
>>>>the application requires a User-Name, but Cx uses a different
>>>>error.
>>>>
>>>>- The draft states that it is not possible to return SIP Server and
>>>>capabilities in the same UAA. In the Cx it is done, but this may
>>>>be changed.
>>>>
>>>>- There are two additional responses to MAR in the draft
>>>>(DIAMETER_SUCCESS_AUTH_SENT_SERVER_NOT_STORED and
>>>>DIAMETER_SUCCESS_SERVER_NAME_NOT_STORED)
>>>>
>>>>- In the draft, it is possible to keep Diameter sessions and use the
>>>>STR and ASR.
>>>>
>>>>- In UAR, Visited-Network-Identifier is optional in the draft and
>>>>mandatory in Cx.
>>>>
>>>>- In RTR, User-Name is optional in the draft and mandatory in Cx.
>>>>
>>>>- Format of the Charging Addresses is different.
>>>>
>>>>- It is possible to generate the once in the Diameter client in the
>>>>draft.
>>>>
>>>>- Authorization-Lifetime and Auth-Grace-Period are present 
>>
>>in the draft
>>
>>>>in MAA, SAA, PPR, LIA and RTA (are they needed in the RTA at all?).
>>>>
>>>>- In the LIA in the draft, there are Redirect-Host, 
>>
>>Redirect-Host-Usage
>>
>>>>and Redirect-Max-Cache-Time, that are not in Cx.
>>>>
>>>>- There is additional functions in Cx that are not in the 
>>
>>draft, like
>>
>>>>barring or implicit registration.
>>>>
>>>>- In the handling of the MAR in the draft, it is stated 
>>
>>that the Diameter
>>
>>>>server keeps the address of the SIP server.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>-- 
>>Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
>>sip:[email protected]
>>Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:[email protected]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland