Re: [martini] #62: Public GRUU Example

  Okay, yes. That's a bug. It should not be in the gruu.

My apologies -- I saw the old -03 text in the bug report (showing a bnc 
parameter in a Request URI). It appeared that was the error you had 
found and were trying to report.

There is, in fact, an error in the Contact: as well. I'll re-open the 
ticket.

/a

On 9/23/10 09:59, Sep 23, Horvath, Ernst wrote:
> 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    Issue #62 was caused by your reading a very outdated version of the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