Minutes of the S2 meeting #14 4th to 8th of September 2000 Bristol, uk

Conclusion: Revised to S2-001610.
S2-001610 from Ericsson: Registration procedures

Revision of S2-001606, according to the comments made during the presentation of the previous version.

Discussion: The S CSCF is not used in figure 1 and can be removed. In point 7 of figure 1, “(subscriber S-CSCF requirements)” should be changed to “required S CSCF capabilities” for consistency reasons.

Some other editorial corrections have to be made.

Conclusion: Editorially revised to S2-001618. The text has to be moved in the main body of 23.228 in S2-001618.
S2-001618 from Ericsson: Registration procedures

Editorial revision of S2-001610

Discussion: THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS THE APPROVED REGISTRATION PROCEDURE.

Conclusion: Approved.

4.1.3Other tdocs on registration

S2-001453 from Lucent: Registration/Deregistration Information Flows

Flows for registration and de-registration at the application level are proposed here.

Discussion: The flows for de-registration were not considered by the drafting.

De-registration initiated by the network has not been studied but can be added later (this is not necessarily based on timer, it can be caused e.g. by the fact that the network realises it has provided services to a frauding user)

Conclusion: Not approved. More contributions are needed on de-registration before a conclusion can be taken. Contributions are invited on this topic at next meeting.
S2-001464 from Ericsson, Nokia, Vodafone: Clarification of HSS Role in SIP Registration procedure

A number of assumptions on HSS are made here, to be used in the future to revised the flows.

Discussion: In point 2, according to Siemens, the authorisation of SIP level registration should be done in the I-CSCF and not in the HSS. It needs to be the case for the contributors because the I CSCF is not involved for a non roaming user and for a security problem. With this same argument, Alcatel says it’s better to have it in the I CSCF, so that the hacker’s flows can be stopped as early as possible.

These arguments were all presented at the drafting, on the discussions on which entity has to make the S CSCF selection.

In point 1, the first bullet is covered by the 4^th one.

Siemens has some concern with point 3 (saying that the HSS is a database and cannot perform the action presented here), but this bullet is only repeating the results of the drafting (D1 is in HSS).

Motorola states that points 3 and 4 are already covered by the registration flows discussed earlier.

In point 4, some re-wording is needed to avoid the word “download”, imprecise (e.g. “download procedure” can be changed by “retrieve”).

Conclusion: Not approved. The flows need to be elaborated first: the text leads to endless discussions.