Re: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement forRequest-URI, retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!)

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Elwell, John wrote:
> Hadriel,
> 
> Well, I have been having a side thread with Christer and Hans Erik, and
> the only difference other than syntax that they could convince me of was
> support for UAs that do not register, in that with loose-route you would
> need additional provisioning in the domain proxy to say that the UA
> (gateway or whatever) supports loose-route. Given that you would need
> provisioning in the proxy anyway for such UAs, I didn't see this as a
> big deal, but it is a difference.

In the case of registration, it is indicated by the ;lr param on the 
contact. In the case of provisioning, you need to provision a contact, 
so its just a matter of provisioning it with ;lr. That is *still* just 
provisioning a uri, so its not really a difference.

	Paul

> John 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Sent: 18 January 2008 15:15
>> To: Elwell, John; Dean Willis; IETF SIP List
>> Subject: RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement 
>> forRequest-URI,retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!)
>>
>> Hey John,
>> Inline...
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Elwell, John [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:48 AM
>>>> But in the re-targeting scenario such as:
>>>>                     RTRG                    RRT
>>>>                    +---+                   +---+
>>>>                    |R1 |                   |R2 |
>>>>                 B /+---+\ C             E /+---+\ F
>>>>             RT   /       \  RT      RT   /       \  RT
>>>>            +---+/         \+---+ D +---+/         \+---+
>>>>            |P1 |           |P2 +---+P3 |           |P4 |
>>>>         A /+---+           +---+   +---+           +---+\ G
>>>>          /                                               \
>>>>    +---+/                                                 \+---+
>>>>    |UAC|                                                   |UAS|
>>>>    +---+                                                   +---+
>>>>
>>>> UA-Loose-routing wants the req-uri seen on connection "C" I think.
>>>> To header gives you A.
>>>> PCPID gives you E.
>>>> Hist-Info gives you A,B,C,D,E,F.
>>> [JRE] According to Dean's definition of RT, it does not change the
>>> Request-URI (only the Route header field presumably, or 
>> maybe not even
>>> that).
>>> So C, D and E are the same. Also A and B are the same, and 
>> F and G are
>>> the same.
>>> So I think:
>>> - UA-Loose-routing gives you C/D/E
>>> - To gives you A/B
>>> - PCPID gives you C/D/E
>>> - Target gives you C/D/E
>>> - Hist-info gives you A/B, C/D/E and F/G.
>> Yes, I agree that is the *theory*.  :)
>> I drew it that way though so we could argue about what the 
>> UAS/UALR-draft _wants_ to happen vs. what _will_ happen if P2 
>> or P3 are not purely RT's and didn't support a new draft. 
>> (Since it seemed the conversation was going that way 
>> previously on this list, for example when Christer pointed 
>> out the difference between Target and PCPID)
>>
>> For example, I think there is more than just a syntax 
>> difference between Christer's sip-target-uri-delivery draft 
>> (STUD?) and Jonathan's UALR approach.  Though I have no idea 
>> which one is better.
>>
>> -hadriel
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
>> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
>> Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
>> Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
> Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip
> 


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip