Re: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph

Hadriel Kaplan <> Tue, 28 September 2010 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A6C3A6D6C for <>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.476
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nfKL7+LEzA46 for <>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC863A6AF3 for <>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:40:09 -0400
Received: from ([]) by mail ([]) with mapi; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:40:08 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <>
To: Brian Lindsay <>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:40:06 -0400
Thread-Topic: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph
Thread-Index: ActfNDDT2mxJ8royS7CLjlfnc08okg==
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of en-mass SIP PBX registration mechanisms <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:39:34 -0000

does it really matter?  I mean John's current proposed text is basically a get-out-of-jail card.  The "unless..." clause is an untestable, abstract condition; and anyone who doesn't want to handle GRUUs doesn't have to.  As a vendor you don't have to, and as an SSP you don't have to.  So what's there to argue about?


On Sep 28, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Brian Lindsay wrote:

> Hi John/all,
>   Whether support for routing of out-of-dialog requests to a contact is required should depend on the service offering of the SSP. For example, SSP support for an out-of-dialog REFER to a contact URI shouldn't be considered mandatory as discussed previously. As such, I think the text proposed should be conditional based on whether such services are supported by the SSP across it's interfaces.
>   Here is some alternate proposed text:
> "Some services may require that entities, outside the SIP PBX, be able to send out-of-dialog requests to a UA behind a SIP-PBX, using a globally routable contact URI. If an SSP supports such services across the SSP interfaces, the SSP MUST support the public GRUU mechanism described in this section, unless the SSP has other means of providing globally routable contact URIs (e.g., by acting as a B2BUA and performing mapping between SIP-PBX-provided local contact URIs and SSP-provided globally routable contact URIs. In such a case the lifetime of the mapping may depend on the services supported by the SSP)."