Dale Worley wrote: > If the registration has a GRUU, it is carried in a <pub-gruu> element > within the <registration> element. See > draft-ietf-sipping-gruu-reg-event-09, soon to be an RFC.
Bob had pointed me to this draft, however I was skeptical about using it since it was expired. But, if it is soon to become an RFC it makes sense to follow it. > > A typical example is: > > <?xml version="1.0"?> > > <reginfo xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:reginfo" > xmlns:gr="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:gruuinfo" > version="0" state="full"> > <registration aor="sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" id="as9" > state="active"> > <contact id="76" state="active" event="registered" > duration-registered="36001" expires="3599" > callid="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" cseq="54321" > q="0.8"> > <uri>sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</uri> > <unknown-param > name="+sip.instance">"<urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6>"</unknown-param> > <gr:pub-gruu uri="sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];gr=hha9s8d-999a"/> > </contact> > </registration> > </reginfo> > > (Because the UA provided an instance ID, there is an <unknown-param > name="+sip.instance"> element as well.) > > (Oddly, a registrar can construct a GRUU for a registration even if the > UA doesn't support GRUU. Because the registrar/proxy converts the GRUU > to the contact of the UA, the UA can receive requests directed to the > GRUU.) > This explains why the LG-Nortels have a GRUU address assigned to them by the registrar. But, I believe only phones that provide an instance id will be assigned a GRUU right now. > Summarizing this discussion, if a UA registers with a Path and is issued > a GRUU, the <reginfo> will look like this: > > <?xml version="1.0"?> > <reginfo xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:reginfo" > xmlns:gr="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:gruuinfo" > version="1" state="partial"> > <registration aor="sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" id="a7" state="active"> > <contact id="76" state="active" event="registered" > duration-registered="100"> > <uri>sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</uri> > <unknown-param name=path>sip:my.path.com</unknown-param> > <gr:pub-gruu uri="sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];gr=hha9s8d-999a"/> > </contact> > </registration> > </reginfo> > Did you leave out the <unknown-param name="+sip.instance"> element on purpose? > (Note that values of the Path header are name-addr's (see RFC 3327 > section 4, and so the "sip:" at the beginning of the value may not be > omitted, as has been done in several examples in this thread.) > Thanks for pointing that out! > The recipient of this document can access this UA via > "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];gr=hha9s8d-999a", or > "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:my.path.com", or > "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]", depending on which components of reginfo it > understands. The first is preferable to the second, and the third may > not work. > Now, I take it that in this case you mean the GRUU address is "hha9s8d-999a", and "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is the"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"? I tested constructing the request using just the GRUU, against the LG-Nortels. The request is correctly routed to the registrar, where the request-URI is replaced by the phone's contact address. However, the GRUU address is still present in the To header, and the phone chokes on that. Arjun _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
