Subject: Re: [Sip] Another WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-gruu-06

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:12:55 -0600

So, where are we at on the new-and-improved WGLC for the new and  
improved GRUU?

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
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: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:24:37 +0200

> So, where are we at on the new-and-improved WGLC for the new and  

dean,

if you by "improved" mean a version that doesn't anymore support
mobility of SIP UAs from one network to another, i don't want to see
such a version.

-- juha

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:47:31 -0600

> mobility of SIP UAs from one network to another, i don't want to see

I'm going to hate myself for asking this, I'm sure, but . . .

What do you mean, Juha? Are you saying we should solve the case that  
allows a SIP UA behind one "unfriendly" SBC to register to a  
registrar that is behind another "unfriendly" SBC, but still take  
"calls" from a UA hidden behind a third "unfriendly" SBC? My head  
hurts just thinking about it . . .

--
Dean

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:39:15 +0200

> hurts just thinking about it . . .

no, i was referring to this discussion:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg12415.html

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg12434.html

gruu MUST support session level mobility so that ietf is not at the
mercy of 3gpp and ims for it.

-- juha

---

From: "Jeroen van Bemmel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:33:52 +0100

Juha,

I agree with you. What about the folloing options:

1) If instead of inserting a Record-Route header with its IP address the UAS 
would somehow communicate its IP address to the UAC (e.g. as a newly defined 
parameter in the Contact header. say "host"), the rule could be changed to 
say that the UAC adds a Route header with that IP address as the last entry. 
This would allow a reINVITE (or UPDATE) with an updated Contact header and a 
different IP address parameter

So:
SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP proxy.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKnaa8
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP host.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK99a
   From: Caller <sip:[email-masked]>;tag=n88ah
   To: Callee <sip:[email-masked]> ;tag=a0z8
   Call-ID: [email-masked]
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Supported: gruu
   Allow: INVITE, OPTIONS, CANCEL, BYE, ACK
   <allOneLine>
   Contact:
   <sip:[email-masked]
   ;opaque=urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6;grid=99a>;host=1.2.3.4
   </allOneLine>
   Content-Length: --
   Content-Type: application/sdp

   [SDP Not shown]
2) do session mobility using REFER (either to a newly obtained GRUU or the 
AoR)Regards,

Jeroen

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:47:27 -0500

One of my takeaways from the meetings at IETF and subsequent thinking on 
the topic, is that we have a set of requirements which are fundamentally 
contradictory. Some folks want the system to work in one way (no route 
pinning to allow mobility), others want it anothter way (pin routes for 
purposes of resolving state references). I suspect we need to have some 
flexibility here. I have some ideas on how to do this via 
Require/Supported mechanisms, without radical surgery to the way 
record-routing and contact works. I have a half-completed draft on this, 
wihch is on my list for the christmas break to polish off..

-Jonathan R.

Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:

> 1) If instead of inserting a Record-Route header with its IP address the 
> UAS would somehow communicate its IP address to the UAC (e.g. as a newly 
> defined parameter in the Contact header. say "host"), the rule could be 
> changed to say that the UAC adds a Route header with that IP address as 
> the last entry. This would allow a reINVITE (or UPDATE) with an updated 
> Contact header and a different IP address parameter
> 
> So:
> SIP/2.0 200 OK
> 2) do session mobility using REFER (either to a newly obtained GRUU or 
> the AoR)Regards,
> 
> Jeroen
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Juha Heinanen" <[email-masked]>

-- 
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