Re: [BLISS] Comments on draft-procter-bliss-call-park-extension-04(Privacy Interactions)

["Dale Worley" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 09:40 -0400, Orton, Scott (RICH1:B620) wrote:
> I agree that if we use the temporary GRUU it will work. But my
> concern is that we are now adding another requirement to the draft. If a
> UA is requesting privacy either from its Proxy or by itself then they
> have to also support draft-ietf-sip-gruu. Where making a simple change
> to parking the call will work for all scenarios without causing another
> draft to be implemented.

In the sipX project, which is a non-centralized PBX system, our
experience is that having proper Contact addresses is mandatory for most
sophisticated call-control activities.  The project hasn't addressed
sophisticated privacy questions at all.  So we are already expecting
that all UAs will support "public GRUUs", and from that point of view,
we don't see it as burdensome to expect that a UA that supports proper
privacy (and the proxy that fronts for it) also supports "temporary
GRUUs".  We expect that to be the least of the tasks needed to support
proper privacy.

The benefit of the current draft's signaling flow is that it allows an
extremely clever way of having a park server that assigns park orbits to
transmit the orbit identifier to the executing UA.

Dale