Re: [sipcore] #38: How is the mapping of a GRUU into its UA Contact marked?

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Wed, 01 September 2010 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 919813A69AE for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 jcKRKhpDgf3e for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3103A69AC for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:12:19 -0400
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:11:57 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 11:11:56 -0400
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] #38: How is the mapping of a GRUU into its UA Contact marked?
Thread-Index: ActJ6ASmw1yXvCRSRtajsm0q46n+3Q==
Message-ID: <A337FC9D-88DF-4EE4-9F52-836DFB8ECD46@acmepacket.com>
References: <061.f3e7a20653cdf403663b0bffba4c43b4@tools.ietf.org> <DF18BFD3-F136-4BC0-81B1-D16DA4657951@ntt-at.com>
In-Reply-To: <DF18BFD3-F136-4BC0-81B1-D16DA4657951@ntt-at.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "worley@alum.mit.edu" <worley@alum.mit.edu>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>, sipcore issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] #38: How is the mapping of a GRUU into its UA Contact marked?
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:11:51 -0000

Except the current 4424bis draft says "rc" is specifically for AoR to registered contact resolution (as Dale points out in section 6.3.1).  A GRUU is not an AoR, in our usual parlance... though I think people have debated it.

Right now the bullet in 6.3.1 says:
   o  "rc": The Request-URI is a contact that is bound to an AOR in an
      abstract location service.  The AOR-to-contact binding has been
      placed into the location service by a SIP Registrar that received
      a SIP REGISTER request.

Even the wording of that is a bit odd, since I think what it wants to say is the entry was added because of a contact binding resolution - not just that the URI was bound to any AoR whatsoever.

So I think the wording should be:
   o  "rc": The URI is a Contact-URI that is bound to the AoR or GRUU used for routing resolution.  
      The AOR-to-contact binding has been placed into the location service by a SIP Registrar through 
      a SIP REGISTER transaction, and used to route this request based on resolving an AoR or GRUU.

(I'm still not sure why it matters that some H-I entries are tagged "rc" due to REGISTER-based databases, vs. simply due to static routes or anything else, but that's another topic)

-hadriel

On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Shida Schubert wrote:

> 
> Hi Dale;
> 
> What do you mean by mapping?
> 
> AFAIK mapping of GRUU to registered contact 
> when proxy is retargeting will result to registered 
> contact marked with "rc".
> 
> Regards
>  Shida 
> 
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:19 AM, sipcore issue tracker wrote:
> 
>> #38: How is the mapping of a GRUU into its UA Contact marked?
>> ---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
>> Reporter:  worley@…             |       Owner:            
>>    Type:  defect               |      Status:  new       
>> Priority:  major                |   Milestone:  milestone1
>> Component:  rfc4244bis           |     Version:            
>> Severity:  In WG Last Call      |    Keywords:            
>> ---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
>> It seems that a common case is the mapping of a GRUU into its UA's
>> Contact.  But taken literally, neither of the cases of section 6.3.1
>> applies, so the mapping would not be marked with either "rc" or "mp".
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/trac/ticket/38>
>> sipcore <http://tools.ietf.org/sipcore/>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sipcore mailing list
>> sipcore@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore