Subject: [Sip] GRUU-10: "gruu" as both a header and URI parameter

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:26:10 -0500

I've got several comments for the gruu spec for today's deadline, and  
will meet Keith's formatting requirement for them in
other messages. There are a couple of topics I wanted to start  
individual threads on though. Here's the first:

Right now, the mechanism is creating a header parameter and a URI  
parameter with the same name : "gruu".

Thinking about this from the perspective of debugging things in a  
lab, or worse, over VoIP or an IM, I envision
many, many conversations that will take this form:

A: I see the problem - it's in the gruu parameter.
B: Ok - I'll change that
(retry)
A: It's still broken - I don't see what you... Oh wait - I didn't  
mean _that_ gruu parameter, go
      change the other one.
B: Oh crud - was it the header parameter or the URI parameter? (and  
which one of those is outside
      the <>'s? I can never keep that straight...)

For the sake of sanity (at least mine), could we please reconsider  
giving these things different names?

RjS

_______________________________________________
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

---

From: "Christer Holmberg \(JO/LMF\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:43:00 +0200

Hi,

As part of the outbound discussion I asked whether it would be possible
to use the same name for the header and URI parameter indicating support
for STUN keep-alive.

Regards,

Christer 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 21. elokuuta 2006 23:26
To: IETF SIP List
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Sip] GRUU-10: "gruu" as both a header and URI parameter

I've got several comments for the gruu spec for today's deadline, and
will meet Keith's formatting requirement for them in other messages.
There are a couple of topics I wanted to start individual threads on
though. Here's the first:

Thinking about this from the perspective of debugging things in a lab,
or worse, over VoIP or an IM, I envision many, many conversations that
will take this form:

A: I see the problem - it's in the gruu parameter.
B: Ok - I'll change that
(retry)
A: It's still broken - I don't see what you... Oh wait - I didn't mean
_that_ gruu parameter, go
      change the other one.
B: Oh crud - was it the header parameter or the URI parameter? (and
which one of those is outside
      the <>'s? I can never keep that straight...)

RjS

_______________________________________________
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

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:29:49 -0400

How about "gruu" and "GRUU"? :-)

Actually, in this case it doesn't bother me enough to want to change it. 
But I won't fight against a change.

	Paul

Robert Sparks wrote:
> or worse, over VoIP or an IM, I envision

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:45:54 -0700

> giving these things different names?

Add my plea for consideration to Robert's - implementors are confused  
enough about the difference between header parameters and uri  
parameters without us adding to the confusion.

It's not like gruu is such an intuitively descriptive acronym that  
nothing else could make sense, we could have gruu and groovy :-)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:13:28 -0400

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>

You remember that parameter names are case-insensitive, don't you?  (I
had to go check -- 19.1.4 and 7.3.1 (top of page 32).)

It would help a lot if we had a standardized terminology, but RFC 3261
didn't establish one.  At my company, we've used these terms:

	Contact:  <[email-masked];bar=1?Baz=2>;quux=3

"bar" is a "URI parameter"
"Baz" is a "header parameter"
"quuz" is a "field parameter"

Dale

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:09:18 -0500

> "quuz" is a "field parameter"

RFC 3261 does try to use the same terminology, except that
the use of "header" is overloaded.  For instance, what you
refer to as a "field parameter" above is actually termed
as a "header parameter" in RFC 3261 in a very consistent
manner.  In fact, Section 20.10 attempts to make a distinction
between a URI parameter and a header parameter.

Unfortunately, rfc3261 also calls the construct "?Baz=2" as a
header.  That is what I think is problematic, since "Contact"
is a header as well.  But the intent was that anything following
the ? would be headers that could potentially appear on a line by
themselves when someone clicks on that URI.  For instance,

    sip:[email-masked]?Subject="Call%20Me"&method=INVITE

would get translated to

    INVITE sip:[email-masked] SIP/2.0
    Subject: Call Me
    ...

Thanks.

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani  vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, Inc.
2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA)