[dispatch] draft-mohali-dispatch-originating-cdiv-parameter: question/comment
Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com> Wed, 23 March 2016 17:52 UTC
Return-Path: <brett@broadsoft.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA8112D7E3 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=broadsoft-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2GxyyxmCMaVk for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22d.google.com (mail-io0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CEE612D73A for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id v187so24922088ioe.2 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadsoft-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/NNqcCOwdzgHJ6ZcAUxD5HhzaYwggVwO/Wa3AQT2IAs=; b=YEpDVWaQeUhOtFLOFJKYBoVKlPOd78VXQ/eZbVTJSPvRi+yaXYLOPziFpagxsOo4Yv 6/fmfr5nsmZ1VCBzDUCm3RgyhF6CKP1iANrsCKlZvXOAHL8BF4ifdR9qlBmRhOz0OxDO p3vTzEAtXLRxRPgsDGm6WtYpE64hVxZI99aATH16yQh6NdlxOV576jau4JgbPbg4qH30 sscKITIAGQSNhCIp4UBMO8VI4QGyEYl6k4SyKyDxpAjC4mWWb+fMdyx7HUWlI2q7AwDN /oxdGoKW9uvoqoQQfQfhiMOdjZ6UflJX6WBsfmYp8C7GQuqaQn2RXonYnxGrGkFhmlIg Z5dg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=/NNqcCOwdzgHJ6ZcAUxD5HhzaYwggVwO/Wa3AQT2IAs=; b=W6iH8JjtbrnP/h7m1Oq4hSrA0noHTUY5vDGNwAmgixQ43Ra3orEZzD7hDSQ3KUm/RS rFqTiNAfK3e6LALO3ZhAf5pQRs3JwIUnETOG+uYQ2LF9fnvO+E/1p/pG4wmxKurQrAMj eHvBnkhCnOeLjPnt4Dhzk976rNgB/H8BbpmBBvf+iSwYya3CrCMjIsvrX1k1isw2eVu7 wOhjlNlFiDHnfVN1Y5xzEQ0ANx1KYCCcdoMZw4Sv94MSpE+oSMGCrXsjgOHbh41bxc3h tBXvlIsXKjqOVL9B72ZTk330PAGpPUjrvisgCpvKKtM42LB5sRTuOixDi/9m41oTUal7 nabw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJ+qI7PeWF/HKJC33vzABUCxlwYhqbi5m3UaIN8q/dtGFaU4+341vr6vvJd4GGmOAuLveUmdJTpulpNtmM3
X-Received: by 10.50.43.133 with SMTP id w5mr24559547igl.80.1458755567444; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdGFLKUn7pBcj0z4RBmzP+jh+8We2g==
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:52:46 -0400
Message-ID: <d50f75327ab8843f911520a74372f33a@mail.gmail.com>
To: marianne.mohali@orange.com, dispatch@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/E2_yf1QhH6Hyu2_l8uvii3-7a2w>
Subject: [dispatch] draft-mohali-dispatch-originating-cdiv-parameter: question/comment
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 17:52:53 -0000
Hi, Since draft-mohali-dispatch-originating-cdiv-parameter is updating RFC 5502, should the draft be updated to include the missing rule concerning when name-addr must be used? As mentioned within the following email from 2013, RFC 5502 does not indicate to use the RFC 3261 section 20 bracket rule (or provide a similar rule). Without such a rule, it is ambiguous if parameters decode as part of PServedUser-value or served-user-param. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg05731.html Thanks, Brett