Re: [martini] martini-gin-08, question on public-gruu

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 28 September 2010 13:13 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DE73A6DFB for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lXve3b+MJHxG for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041DF3A6DE9 for <martini@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydra-3.local (ppp-70-249-149-233.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net [70.249.149.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8SD9ucZ066602 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:09:56 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4CA1E924.700@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:09:56 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martien Huysmans <martien.huysmans@ericsson.com>
References: <B1771F0F1F97A8478E2F449EA19CC7C5DA1A7EF2@ESESSCMS0365.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <B1771F0F1F97A8478E2F449EA19CC7C5DA1A7EF2@ESESSCMS0365.eemea.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050705090305000206050907"
Cc: "martini@ietf.org" <martini@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [martini] martini-gin-08, question on public-gruu
X-BeenThere: martini@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of en-mass SIP PBX registration mechanisms <martini.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini>
List-Post: <mailto:martini@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:13:58 -0000

  On 9/28/10 02:33, Sep 28, Martien Huysmans wrote:
>
> Ch 7.1.1 describes that a UA behind a SIP-PBX can receive the 
> following contact header
>
> <allOneLine>
>
>    Contact: <sip:line-1@10.20.1.17>;
>
>    pub-gruu="sip:+12145550102@ssp.example.com;gr=urn:
>
> uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6;sg=00:05:03:5e:70:a6";
>
> +sip.instance="<urn:uuid:d0e2f290-104b-11df-8a39-0800200c9a66>"
>
>    ;expires=3600
>
> </allOneLine>.
>
> Assume this UA (UA1) send an INVITE to UA2 where UA1 includes in it's 
> contact the above public GRUU.
>
> Assume that UA1 and UA2 are both registered with the same SIP-PBX.
>
> Next UA2 uses the above public GRUU in an out-of-dialog INVITE request 
> to UA2. That INVITE would look like
>
> INVITE 
> sip:+12145550102@ssp.example.com;gr=urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6;sg=00:05:03:5e:70:a6 
> SIP/2.0
>
> As the SIP-PBX is not authoritative for the ssp.example.com domain, 
> the SIP-PBX will route the request to the SSP,
> where the RURI is updated and the following INVITE is send to the SIP-PBX.
>
> INVITE sip:+12145550102@198.51.100.3;sg=00:05:03:5e:70:a6 SIP/2.0.
>
> Is this how it will work?
>

That would work. It wouldn't be a very smart design on the PBX's part, 
but it would work.

At well-designed PBX would recognize that as one of its own GRUUs -- 
that is, a GRUU that it had manufactured -- and act on it appropriately.

But it's really an implementation decision what happens here.

/a