Re: [Sip] Comment on draft-roach-sipcore-rfc3265bis-00

["Dale Worley" <dworley at nortel.com>]

On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 17:32 -0700, Adam Roach wrote:
> self-made GRUUs

What is a "self-made GRUU"?

> > In 4.5.2, it seems to me to be unwise to allow the notifier to respond
> > 403 to subscriptions within existing dialogs, as that is a significant
> > constriction of the current requirements.
> 
> In what way? Implementors are still allowed to accept such incoming 
> connections, but one of the key changes I think is necessary in this 
> revision is to free implementors from the morass of coding for dialog 
> sharing -- because MOST PEOPLE GET IT WRONG. I see little value with 
> maintaining backwards "compatibility" with a feature that, by and large, 
> wasn't compatible between multiple implementations in the first place.

That's a good point, although I fear that the real effect will be to
free implementors from *fixing their implementations* if something is
incorrect.

At the least, I think that you *must* limit the ability to send 403 to
devices that *are* using GRUUs as their contact.  I can *easily* see an
implementor implementing the "403" part of -bis- and deciding to omit
the "GRUU contact" part.

> > In regard to the long list following "To implement dialog sharing", is
> > any of this material new?  As far as I can tell, it is a summary of
> > 3265/5057.  If so, it should be explicitly labeled as such, and refer
> > the reader to those RFCs as the normative text.  If not, the
> > relationship of this list with those RFCs needs to be made explicit. 
> 
> The list you refer to is copied from various parts of the original text 
> (i.e., 3265). The intention is for this document to obsolete 3265, so 
> referring to 3265 for procedures would make no sense.

So you're saying that this list is *complete*?

Dale