Re: [martini] #62: Public GRUU Example

Sorry for being insistent, but on page 9 of the  current draft (-06) I read:

  "The resulting Contact header field sent from the SIP-PBX to the
   registering UA would look something like this:

   <allOneLine>
   Contact: <sip:line-1@10.20.1.17>;
   pub-gruu="sip:+12145550102@ssp.example.com;bnc;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> 

Now wouldn't an innocent UA copy the whole string found in pub-gruuu into a Contact? And wouldn't then an external UA that received that contact be tempted to send a request with exactly the same string as Request-URI? Including a userinfo portion and the bnc parameter?

Thanks,
Ernst

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@nostrum.com] 
> Sent: Donnerstag, 23. September 2010 16:47
> To: Horvath, Ernst
> Cc: martini@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [martini] #62: Public GRUU Example
> 
>   Issue #62 was caused by your reading a very outdated version of the 
> document. There was an error in one of the examples. It was 
> fixed in -04.
> 
> To be clear: "bnc" should never appear in a Request-URI.
> 
> /a
> 
> On 9/23/10 03:35, Sep 23, Horvath, Ernst wrote:
> > Adam,
> >
> > It seems that issue #62 was caused by my misunderstanding 
> of the bnc parameter.
> >
> > I was surprised that the parameter all of a sudden appeared 
> in a Request-URI together with a user part. My thinking was, 
> when the PBX generates an individual GRUU it inserts a user 
> part into the "bnc" public GRUU returned by the Registrar and 
> an 'sg' parameter, so why would it have to retain the bnc 
> parameter as well? Would the presence of the 'sg' parameter 
> not be sufficient? 'bnc' seems redundant here. If it is not, 
> why isn't 'bnc' needed for non-GRUUs as well? In this case 
> the SP proxy is expected to recognize the AOR as 
> bulk-registered by just looking at the user part. Why would 
> that not work for a GRUU, too?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ernst
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: martini-bounces@ietf.org
> >> [mailto:martini-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of martini 
> issue tracker
> >> Sent: Donnerstag, 23. September 2010 00:00
> >> To: adam@nostrum.com
> >> Cc: martini@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [martini] #62: Public GRUU Example
> >>
> >> #62: Public GRUU Example
> >> --------------------------------------------------+-----------
> >> --------------
> >>   Reporter:  ernst.horvath@...                       |
> >> Owner:  adam@...
> >>       Type:  defect                                |
> >> Status:  closed
> >>   Priority:  major                                 |
> >> Milestone:  milestone1
> >> Component:  gin                                   |
> >> Version:  1.0
> >>   Severity:  In WG Last Call                       |
> >> Resolution:  invalid
> >>   Keywords:                                        |
> >> --------------------------------------------------+-----------
> >> --------------
> >> Changes (by adam@...):
> >>
> >>    * status:  new =>  closed
> >>    * resolution:  =>  invalid
> >>
> >>
> >> Comment:
> >>
> >>   Fixed in -04 (June 2010)
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Ticket URL:
> >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/martini/trac/ticket/62#comment:1>
> >> martini<http://tools.ietf.org/martini/>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> martini mailing list
> >> martini@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
> 
> 