On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 09:40 -0400, Orton, Scott (RICH1:B620) wrote: > I agree that if we use the temporary GRUU it will work. But my > concern is that we are now adding another requirement to the draft. If a > UA is requesting privacy either from its Proxy or by itself then they > have to also support draft-ietf-sip-gruu. Where making a simple change > to parking the call will work for all scenarios without causing another > draft to be implemented.
In the sipX project, which is a non-centralized PBX system, our experience is that having proper Contact addresses is mandatory for most sophisticated call-control activities. The project hasn't addressed sophisticated privacy questions at all. So we are already expecting that all UAs will support "public GRUUs", and from that point of view, we don't see it as burdensome to expect that a UA that supports proper privacy (and the proxy that fronts for it) also supports "temporary GRUUs". We expect that to be the least of the tasks needed to support proper privacy. The benefit of the current draft's signaling flow is that it allows an extremely clever way of having a park server that assigns park orbits to transmit the orbit identifier to the executing UA. Dale _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
