IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com> Fri, 03 September 2010 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <shida@ntt-at.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 744AE3A68CC for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, 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 TiQKxaiJ3oxf for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gateway03.websitewelcome.com (gateway03.websitewelcome.com [74.52.223.144]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E5B73A68BC for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26837 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2010 14:17:27 -0000
Received: from gator465.hostgator.com (69.56.174.130) by gateway03.websitewelcome.com with SMTP; 3 Sep 2010 14:17:27 -0000
Received: from [60.236.84.106] (port=49719 helo=[192.168.1.2]) by gator465.hostgator.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <shida@ntt-at.com>) id 1OrX51-0003FN-VP; Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:17:24 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C80EF97.4090703@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 23:17:23 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2E92FEF2-DCBD-44A9-869B-CCE2BB98278F@ntt-at.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>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator465.hostgator.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ntt-at.com
Cc: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>, sipcore issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>, "worley@alum.mit.edu" <worley@alum.mit.edu>
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: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:16:59 -0000

Paul,

 It sounds like you are advocating not to tag GRUU 
the mapped-to entry with "rc" and treat it like an 
AoR. 

 I too think it's cleaner to leave GRUU out of tagging.

 Whether "gr" parameter appears in the H-I is self 
made or not, UAS receiving the request can look for  
"gr" param in the H-I and determine if the request 
was meant for registerer generated GRUU or self 
made. 

 Regards
  Shida

On Sep 3, 2010, at 9:52 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> Be very careful here. RFC 5627 describes a technique for constructing gruus that are associated with AORs. It also describes "self made GRUUs" which are simply URIs that are naturally globally routable. Both kinds get the gr parameter. Self made gruus may have *no* association with an AOR at all.
> 
> While it might "work", tagging a self made gruu as an AOR would at least be confusing.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> Shida Schubert wrote:
>> I just re-read GRUU and realized that, for some reason I thought public GRUU was specified as a type of AoR in the spec.  I guess the question then is whether we want to expand the semantics of "rc" to include GRUU's mapping to contact address.
>>  After all GRUU can still be identified in the H-I using the "gr" parameter, so keeping the text as is may not be such a big deal. So may be adding text to identify GRUU in H-I is all we need.  Regards
>>  Shida
>> On Sep 3, 2010, at 3:53 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shida Schubert [shida@ntt-at.com]
>>> 
>>> AFAIK mapping of GRUU to registered contact
>>> when proxy is retargeting will result to registered
>>> contact marked with "rc".
>>> ________________________________________
>>> 
>>> A GRUU is not an AOR and the text states that "rc" is to be used *only* for the mappings from AORs to their registered contacts.
>>> 
>>> Dale
>> _______________________________________________
>> sipcore mailing list
>> sipcore@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email