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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Fri, 18 January 2008 15:59 UTC

Return-path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFtdN-0005AL-Qy; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:59:57 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JFtdL-0005AE-Uv for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:59:55 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFtdL-0005A3-Is for sip@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:59:55 -0500
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFtdL-00076M-0j for sip@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:59:55 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,217,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="83772540"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2008 10:59:55 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0IFxrOK027971; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:59:53 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0IFvQNc026023; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:59:41 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:59:33 -0500
Received: from [161.44.174.133] ([161.44.174.133]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:59:32 -0500
Message-ID: <4790CCE8.2060605@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:59:36 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement forRequest-URI, retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!)
References: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918001AC02E9@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1438F1B0@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> <478CEFB4.6070002@zonnet.nl> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF0413D587@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> A <"CA9998CD4A0 20D418654FCDEF4E707DF04173CB8"@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <" 0 D5F89FAC29 E2 C41B98A6A762007F5D0593CFF"@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> A <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF041743D6@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0593E13@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF041C939B@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <C8D63C78-437F-430E-950C-2E63C69E3CEF@softarmor.com> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC306E4ED4501@mail.acmepacket.com> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0594068@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC306E4ED497B@mail.acmepacket.com> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D05941CF@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
In-Reply-To: <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D05941CF@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jan 2008 15:59:32.0392 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D4E5A80:01C859EB]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4013; t=1200671993; x=1201535993; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pkyzivat@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Kyzivat=20<pkyzivat@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sip]=20=09Vocabulary=20and=20problem=2 0statement=09forRequest-URI,retargeting,=0A=20and=20SIP=20ro uting=20(long,=20but=20read=20it!) |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Elwell,=20John=22=20<john.elwell@siemens.com>; bh=LEdqRuhd1WwH3GxUdRgaYcs4BEZ4V0arRys59FFVP78=; b=nmjprGtX5W8AfOnOmxb8YS9VpCMYRwQ+HVYEl6V3cLRbf/XPSw6HlkpRPI wRDuxbH9CkpkP6W2EXVBOG7x+I3MhZ7LVdCjogZhEFAuj5ZzdIJJ3b1lHIDw QGRlwuex6j;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=pkyzivat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db
Cc: IETF SIP List <sip@ietf.org>, Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org


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:HKaplan@acmepacket.com] 
>> 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:john.elwell@siemens.com]
>>> 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 sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
>> Use sipping@ietf.org 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 sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping@ietf.org 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 sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip