[Sip] SIP instance identifiers

Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com> Mon, 16 February 2004 01:50 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07668 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:50:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsXts-0006y9-88 for sip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:50:20 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1G1oKTt026727 for sip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:50:20 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsXtb-0006oI-K7; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:50:03 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsXtU-0006nM-As for sip@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:49:56 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07645 for <sip@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:49:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsXtR-0000Yx-00 for sip@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:49:53 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsXsg-0000VP-00 for sip@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:49:07 -0500
Received: from [63.113.44.69] (helo=mail3.dynamicsoft.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsXrt-0000Jl-00 for sip@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:48:17 -0500
Received: from dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.46.68]) by mail3.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i1G1ltNr004827 for <sip@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:47:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <40302143.9080000@dynamicsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:47:47 -0500
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>
Organization: dynamicsoft
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sip@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Sip] SIP instance identifiers
Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Folks,

We have three drafts this round that all propose a way to define an 
instance identifier for a UA:


http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-ietf-sip-gruu-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jennings-sipping-instance-id-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stucker-sip-guid-00.txt

all three are similar. Mine uses a contact header field parameter, and 
uses the callee capabilities framework to enable caller preferences 
routing based on instance iDs. Cullen also uses a contact parameter, but 
not within the callee caps framework. Brian defines a header field.

I think we generally understand the requirement here, though it would 
probably be good to obtain use cases to be sure. The design choice is 
where to include this parameter, and this represents the difference 
between the three approaches.

I tend to prefer a Contact URI parameter over a header. My main reason 
for that is REGISTER requests. If a register request has multiple 
contacts, which contact does the instance identifier apply to? As a 
header field, it would be hard to know. If you make it a contact header 
field parameter, its no problem. Those header field parameters could 
also then be used in the Contact in INVITE/200 SUB/NOT, etc.

Then, the question is whether to use a regular Contact header field 
parameter as Cullen has done, or a callee cap parameter as I have done? 
The callee cap approach allows for caller preferences to be applied to 
routing to a specific instance. Now, a good question is whether such a 
thing is needed or even a good idea, if we have GRUU as the ideal way to 
route to a UA instance. I can go either way, but welcome thoughts on the 
topic.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip