Subject: [Sip] updated GRUU spec

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:46:46 -0400

Folks,

I've just submitted an update to the gruu spec. Until it appears in the 
archives, you can pick up a copy at:

http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-ietf-sip-gruu-04.txt

The changes from -03 are:

* included up front discussion on properties of URIs, and how GRUU is
merely a property of a URI. Application of other properties is a
domain policy and not determinable from inspection of the URI

* defined the opaque URI parameter, included grammar for it and a URI
parameter registration. Defined its usage with gruu and gave examples
of applicability to other things.

* usage of the opaque parameter for construction of a GRUU is
recommended, unless the anonymity property is also desired. The text
describes how a UA can extract the AOR when it has a gruu that was
constructed using an opaque parameter

* added example algorithm for gruu construction using the opaque
parameter, and removed the hashed indices algorithm that was
previously there

* procedure for allowing an edge proxy to remove itself from the
record-route in order to eliminate spirals, was documented

* Previously, the REGISTER response didnt need the Require header
field with gruu. This is wrong; it does. It is now mandated with MUST
strength

* updated examples to use recommended basic gruu construction
algorithm. It also now uses the conventions in
draft-ietf-sipping-torture-tests to deal with long lines in example
messages

* fixed big bug in grammar, which had omitted the "<" and ">" from the
definitions of the +sip.instance contact header field parameter.

* a registrar no longer deletes a previous registration with the same
instance ID; instead, it simply elects not to use it when proxying a
request. This has the same overall effect but is more compatible with
the behavior in sipping-outbound. The gruu spec defines procedures for
processing requests sent to an AOR and a GRUU as a result

* added a paragraph on administratively created gruus for cases where
the proxy and UA instance are co-located; for network servers like
gateways and voicemail servers, who have public dns entries and IP,
they would simply construct a gruu and use it

* more detailed recommendations on how to apply the service treatment
property to gruus

* clarified the usage of the angle brackets in the instance ID Contact
parameter.

* updated the UML to fix some missing and incorrect cardinalities

* there was an example that talked about how two contacts registered to
different AOR, but with the same instance ID, would get different gruu.
This example incorrectly used the same contact for each AOR, which a
client is not supposed to do. This was fixed.

* fixed bug in grammar, so that SIPS URI are allowed for a gruu

* fixed example register response in the examples section, which was
missing the gruu

* defined procedures for picking the gruu in an INVITE or 200 OK in
the case where an instance has registered against multiple AOR

* more precise definitions on when a proxy sends a 404 vs. a 480; a
480 is sent if the AOR of the gruu is known but the instance ID is not

* security considerations section has a discussion on why its not that
important to hide the aor and instance ID

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

_______________________________________________
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