IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 01 July 2010 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CA33A67D1 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.142
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.142 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.457, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l34mp+yWgtGS for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A5E3A67AC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAP6aK0yrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACfXXGlLppKhSUEg26ENw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,516,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="152295150"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jul 2010 02:31:59 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.177] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o612VwEO029261; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:31:58 GMT
Subject: Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Impp: xmpp:cullenfluffyjennings@jabber.org
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAE7F5D3AB@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:31:57 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BD4EE5F8-6111-45C2-935D-A71E1527C8A5@cisco.com>
References: <20100622170002.02B053A683E@core3.amsl.com> <74B1068E-86C0-426E-8E9B-841C23EE9965@cisco.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAE7F5D3AB@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
To: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 02:31:49 -0000

On Jun 29, 2010, at 3:25 AM, Elwell, John wrote:

> Cullen,
> 
> Whilst neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the charter, I did not find anything in the charter that said the information had to be in the SIP header rather than in the body. On what basis do you make that deduction?
> 
> John

When I read 
 5. SIP elements may need to apply policy about passing and screening
  the information.

And the discussion about it's not just UA. I reached that perhaps flawed conclusion that proxies needed to be able to change the information when "screening" and thus it needed to be in a header. Note I would have far less of an issue with an opaque container for proprietary information if it was in a body instead of a header and had the types of constraints that SIP-T has.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email