Re: [Sip] configuration NOTIFY in example 9.1 of outbound i-d

"Francois Audet" <audet@nortel.com> Thu, 02 October 2008 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sip-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9395428C0F1; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 16:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80FF728C0F1 for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 16:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 yv5nCWhpkulo for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com (zcars04e.nortel.com [47.129.242.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B39C3A68FE for <sip@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.71]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m92N7MS22652; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:07:22 GMT
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:09:37 -0500
Message-ID: <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF198A6CF5@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8B2BE35-DBD7-4751-8EF2-A37F148B5C32@softarmor.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sip] configuration NOTIFY in example 9.1 of outbound i-d
Thread-Index: Ackk4guULRc9t1QHRyidCgymkq1jtgAAQ8hA
References: <18656.60044.302965.535846@harjus.tutpro.com> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF197351A7@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> <18657.2518.651908.902884@harjus.tutpro.com> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF197354D8@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> <48E139E9.4050008@cisco.com> <B8B2BE35-DBD7-4751-8EF2-A37F148B5C32@softarmor.com>
From: Francois Audet <audet@nortel.com>
To: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Rohan Mahy <rohan@ekabal.com>, sip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] configuration NOTIFY in example 9.1 of outbound i-d
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

My take on this is that Juha is right and the document should really say:

	If the UAC is sending a dialog-forming request, and wants all
	subsequent requests in the dialog to arrive over the same
	flow, the UAC MUST add an 'ob' parameter to its Contact header.  
      [ DELETE NEXT SENTENCE ENTIRELY ]

In other words, GRUU is orthogonal and does NOT imply "ob" behavior.

Clean and simple, and I *think* this was our intent (i.e., I think
this is an historical oversight).

Cullen, can you confirm or clarify?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Willis [mailto:dean.willis@softarmor.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 15:56
> To: Paul Kyzivat
> Cc: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Cullen Jennings; Rohan 
> Mahy; sip@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Sip] configuration NOTIFY in example 9.1 of outbound i-d
> 
> 
> On Sep 29, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Francois Audet wrote:
> >>> > Section 4.3 states (UA procedures):
> >>> >    If the UAC is sending a dialog-forming request, and wants all
> >>> >    subsequent requests in the dialog to arrive over the same
> >>> flow, the
> >>> >    UAC adds an 'ob' parameter to its Contact header.  Typically
> >>> this is
> >>> >    desirable, but it is not necessary for example if the Contact
> >>> is a
> >>> >    GRUU [I-D.ietf-sip-gruu].
> >>> if contact is gruu, does it mean that 'ob' param is implicitly 
> >>> included?
> >> I am not sure why this is worded like this. I was thinking 
> that using 
> >> a GRUU as a contact in a dialog-forming request would mandate that 
> >> requests sent to that Contact would be sent using the same 
> flow, but 
> >> I see no such rule in draft-ietf-sip-gruu.
> >
> > Gruu isn't dependent on outbound.
> >
> >
> 
> So explain this one for me, please.
> 
> Is it that, if the gruu was formed using outbound (that is, 
> the "real"  
> contact for which the gruu is an alias has an "ob") use of 
> the gruu will use the "ob" in the dereferencing at the gruu-provider?
> 
> So for the example referenced above may be correct, but 
> incomplete -- it should talk about whether or not the gruu 
> was formed using outbound, not just whether or not the 
> contact isa gruu.
> 
> --
> Dean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.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