Subject: [Sip] Revison of WGLC on draft-ietf-sip-gruu

From: "Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:20:57 +0100

(As WG chair)

This is to announce a revised working group last call on
draft-ietf-sip-gruu-11, which may be found at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-gruu-11.txt

This WGLC will end on Monday 27th November.

Please mail all comments to the SIP list and to the authors.

The comments from the previous WGLC may all be found at:

https://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/reviews/gruu/gruu-10-comments-v4.htm 

Or alternatively

https://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/reviews/gruu/gruu-10-comments-v4.doc

I would ask all who submitted comments against draft-ietf-sip-gruu-10 to
check the resultion of their comments and if appropriate remake any
comments they consider were not resolved to their satisfaction.

Regards

Keith

Keith Drage
Lucent Technologies
[email-masked]
tel: +44 1793 776249

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:09:18 -0500

I'm happy with this version.

In particular, I have quite satisfied with the parameter names 
"pub-gruu" and "temp-gruu" and don't think any further changes to the 
names would be helpful.

	Paul

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:38:02 -0500

For those not at the meeting, one of the comments at the mike was that 
"temp-gruu" is a bad name since "temporary" is not really the opposite 
of "public". A related comment was that these GRUU might not be very 
temporary at all if a UA remains registered for days or weeks.

My thoughts on this is that there is nothing that says these GRUU are 
opposites. They share some properties, and differ in others. So I don't 
think we need to use something that is the opposite of "public" 
("private" and "anonymous" had been suggested). Indeed, the reason we 
didn't use "private" or "anonymous" was that we didn't want to give any 
false sense of privacy. Usage of the GRUU itself does NOT provide a 
complete privacy solution. "Privacy" and "anonymity" are complex topics.

Finally, though a temporary GRUU may last a long time, its still 
temporary relative to the public GRUU, which has a nearly infinite lifetime.

Thanks,

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

---

From: EKR <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:43:35 -0800

Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]> writes:

> opposites. They share some properties, and differ in others. So I
> don't think we need to use something that is the opposite of "public"
> didn't use "private" or "anonymous" was that we didn't want to give
> any false sense of privacy. Usage of the GRUU itself does NOT provide
> a complete privacy solution. "Privacy" and "anonymity" are complex
> topics.
>

The problem isn't primarily that they're not opposites, but rather
that they're orthogonal properties and therefore don't divide
the space. Why can't you have a temporary public gruu?

-Ekr

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:57:10 -0500

> the space. Why can't you have a temporary public gruu?

To me, "public" was trying to summarize two key properties:

1. relative long lived-ness
2. correlatable to the AOR

with that notion of "public", a temporary public gruu isn't sensible.

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:30:32 -0800

> with that notion of "public", a temporary public gruu isn't sensible.

Sure, but I don't think that's the connotation it actually has...

-Ekr

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:28:38 -0500

> Sure, but I don't think that's the connotation it actually has...

IMO we won't find any terms with names that are acceptably short and 
memorable and have precisely the correct connotation for everybody.

While the names clearly are intended to have some meaningful 
connotation, when you get down to the details it is the formal 
definition in the spec that matters. I don't think the current names are 
going to cause anybody to make some huge mistake, so I think they are 
good enough.

If there is a decision to change them, then I think we will either spend 
a bunch of time just arguing about what name to use, or else we will 
pick other names that have other problems, or both.

	Paul

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:13:05 -0600

On Nov 17, 2006, at 2:28 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> IMO we won't find any terms with names that are acceptably short  
> and memorable and have precisely the correct connotation for  
> everybody.
>
> definition in the spec that matters. I don't think the current  
> names are going to cause anybody to make some huge mistake, so I  
> think they are good enough.
>
> If there is a decision to change them, then I think we will either  
> spend a bunch of time just arguing about what name to use, or else  
> we will pick other names that have other problems, or both.
>

Personally, I like r-gruu and l-gruu, based on which hemisphere of  
the brain might choose to use them.

Or maybe statgruu and dyngruu, referring not to  their functions, but  
to a couple of engineering classes (statics and dynamics) that pained  
me almost as much as this conversation.

--
dean