Subject: Re: [Sip] One remaining GRUU issue: GRUUs for non-GRUU UA

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 15:52:18 -0400

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>

   Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
   > Thanks for chiming in Dale.
   > 
   > So, so far I have three folks saying its a feature (myself, Dale, Peter) 
   > and Michael saying its a bug but he is willing to drop the issue. I'll 
   > give people another day or so, but unless anyone pipes up I think we can 
   > close this issue.

   Well, it got the way it is because of me, and I stand by it.

After reading and discussing Michael's question, I'm not sure that
we've completely examined it.  We now understand that the introduction
of GRUU does not allow proxies to refrain from record-routing in
circumstances where they would have had to in the past.  With that
understood, are we assured that Michael's problem cannot arise in
situations where it does not arise without GRUU?  Viz., an apparently
usable URI with which a dialog can be started but cannot be continued.

Dale

_______________________________________________
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: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 08:39:37 -0400

Dale,

In a previous note, I walked through the case of an entity sending a 
request to a GRUU, when its UA didn't support it. There were no problems 
with mid-dialog signaling in this case, excepting the record-route 
exception clarification. If you have a concern, please be specific.

-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: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:43:43 -0400

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>

My concern was that I wasn't sure we had vetted the solution quite
carefully enough.  Since I came up with what appeared to me to be a
more rigorous characterization of the properties we wished the system
to have, and then used that characterization to show that the proposed
solution does indeed work, I wanted to present it to the assembled
masses.

Dale