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

["Elwell, John" <[e-mail]>]

If we use 'rc' for a URI obtained by mapping GRUU-to-registered-contact, as well as for a URI obtained by mapping AOR-to-registered-contact, we can no longer say that an application looks for the hi-entry prior to the last 'rc'-marked hi-entry in order to obtain the AOR. Of course, if the original request was to the GRUU, there is no AOR, so we should make it clear the application will find either the AOR or the GRUU.

John
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> Sent: 01 September 2010 16:12
> To: Shida Schubert
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; sipcore issue tracker
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] #38: How is the mapping of a GRUU into 
> its UA Contact marked?
> 
> 
> 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
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > sipcore mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>