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

"Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com> Thu, 21 October 2010 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <dworley@avaya.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 B95EE3A683A for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 YH5hJdX14ULg for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1752A3A68E1 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,219,1286164800"; d="scan'208";a="243941204"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2010 16:11:49 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,219,1286164800"; d="scan'208";a="528849611"
Received: from dc-us1hcex2.us1.avaya.com (HELO DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.21]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2010 16:11:49 -0400
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.90]) by DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:11:48 -0400
From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:08:35 -0400
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] #38: How is the mapping of a GRUU into its UA Contact marked?
Thread-Index: ActrEb62RGpdQk9wT4+f8qTM9PnV2wGSf9fZ
Message-ID: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B220228896E@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
References: <061.f3e7a20653cdf403663b0bffba4c43b4@tools.ietf.org> <DF18BFD3-F136-4BC0-81B1-D16DA4657951@ntt-at.com> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B21FFC79C09@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <35ECC1DD-6DD6-4103-AC47-A2F9A0D69DAD@ntt-at.com> <4C80EF97.4090703@cisco.com> <2E92FEF2-DCBD-44A9-869B-CCE2BB98278F@ntt-at.com> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B21FFC79C19@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <54579397-D4DC-4043-8D42-7E6F357E5F6F@ntt-at.com> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B21FFC79C24@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>, <AANLkTimi1VgwV9z5_Hc8MPxGWMba9P3p2n+mJw2ZY_Ei@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimi1VgwV9z5_Hc8MPxGWMba9P3p2n+mJw2ZY_Ei@mail.gmail.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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@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: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:10:14 -0000

________________________________________
From: Mary Barnes [mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com]

So, then it seems you are advocating we add an additional "gr" tag.
However, wouldn't the absence of "mp" or "rc" for a GRUU indicate that
the GRUU wasn't mapped.  I guess it is not harmful to add a unique tag
for cases where a GRUU is used, but do you have a use case where this
is relevant?
________________________________________

I haven't thought through all the use cases.  I've just been assuming that the goal is for each conversion of one URI into another to describe the nature of the conversion.  I expect the case of a GRUU being converted into its registered contact to be frequent, and there is the possibility that in some situations GRUUs will be converted into URIs some other way.  So it seems to me to be reasonable that there is a tag meaning "the mapping of a GRUU into its registered contact".

Perhaps an explanation of the organizing principle of the set of tags would make clearer why some conversions have tags and others do not.

Dale