Hi Michael, >>>GRUU is a little more subtle than that. If a UA provides an >>>instance-id to a GRUU-supporting registrar, then the >>>registrar will create a GRUU for that UA, whether it indicates support or not. >>> >> >>Then the question is: if I only want to use outbound, is it >>always ok that the registrar creates a GRUU for me (no matter >>whether it returns it or not)? >> > >I raised much the same question last year (March/April time), >and I think the conclusion was that creating the GRUU doesn't >cause problems and should be considered a Good Thing.
I think it is confusing that the 200 OK does not contain the gruu. Shouldn't the 200 OK contain all currently registered contacts? When a contact has been registered for an AOR (the RFC3680 statemachine for the AOR is in "active" state), meaning that the AOR is reachable. So, what is the justification for generating a gruu, but not returning it (after all, the gruu will be sent to the UA if it registers to the regevent package, so...)??? >>Then the text in 5.1, about the Require header is a little confusing. It says that Require:gruu will NOT require the >>registrar to even generate a gruu - only that the registrar is required to support gruu. >> >>OR, does the text refer to the case when the request ONLY contains Require:gruu, but no instance-id? >> >>"A REGISTER request might contain a Require header field with the >>"gruu" option tag; this indicates that the registrar has to >>understand this extension in order to process the request. It does >>not require the registrar to create GRUUs, however." >> > >I think this is the normal Require processing. Putting 'Require: gruu' >in your REGISTER will ensure that it will only succeed on a >GRUU-aware registrar. It doesn't control or enforce any >particular GRUU-related processing, only that the registrar >understands GRUU. This behaviour (requiring understanding, >ot invoking) is common for many but not all SIP options. My question is still: if the REGISTER contains instance-id AND Require:gruu, is a gruu generated? On one side the presence of instance-id always creates a gruu, but on the other side the text says that the precense of Require:gruu does NOT mandate the creation of a gruu. OR, does the text simply mean that Require:gruu on its own (ie no instance-id) does not mandate the creation of a gruu? >>Maybe it would be good to clarify, in the outbound spec, >>that a gruu will be generated if the registrar supports gruu. >>Because, at least in 3GPP there has been some confusion about >>that, and I believe such clarification would prevent future >>interop problems. > >I'm certainly in favour of reducing ambiguity, where it >exists, but I'm not sure outbound is the place to talk about >GRUUs. > >I think that the outbound spec should clarify that the instance-id, when used with outbound, will also create a gruu, >according to the rules in the gruu-spec. > >How did the confusion arise? The GRUU spec seems reasonably clear on this point. I don't remember the exact details, but: 3GPP uses gruu, and 3GPP has adopted outbound for the multiple registration feature (previously it was defined only for NAT traveral), so the question came up when the procedures for the multiple registration feature was discussed: will a gruu also be generated? It may be obvious to people on this list, and of course we could clarify it in the 3GPP specifications. But, I think this would be a useful generic clarification in the outbound spec. Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
