VS: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy

["Christer Holmberg" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
 
In order to think about documenting "alternative solutions", I have a question for clarifications regarding the scope of the problem we are trying to solve.
 
The MECHANISM part of the draft says that a UA supporting the mechanism would indicate it to the registrar, and the registrar would only use the mechanism in case the UA has indicated support for it (that is also shown in the example in the draft). It has also been claimed that this would be backward compatible with an MGC which uses the R-URI to map to ISUP Called Party number, because the MGC does not register so the mechanism would not be used towards it. 
 
My question is: does this mean that the only entity allowed to use this mechanism is the registrar, since the mechanism is used based on whether the UA supports it or not? 
 
When reading the USE-CASE part of the draft, I would say that the answer is "no". Because, as I understand the text, there could be non-registrar entities in the path, which today normally would re-write the R-URI, but would now instead use this mechanism. Is my understanding correct?
 
If so, my next question is: these non-registrar entities have no clue about whether the terminating UA supports the mechanism or not, or whether the call will be routed towards an MGC. So, what happens if the request is routed towards an UA that has not indicated support, or towards an MGC? The MGC may not be able to map the R-URI.
 
Regards,
 
Christer
 
 

________________________________

Lähettäjä: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Lähetetty: ti 4.12.2007 16:27
Vastaanottaja: [e-mail]
Aihe: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy



(As WG chair)

We have a couple of milestones that we generated as a result of
discussion of

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-0
1.txt

Dec 2007    Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy to
WGLC 
Feb 2008    Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy to
IESG (PS) 

This work is currently stalled and the editor needs input.

The document contains various example scenarios where a solution is
required, for which there appears to be no dispute that a solution is
needed.

The document proposes one solution to resolve these example scenarios,
but this solution is not gaining consensus. At least one other solution
has been talked about, but there is no documentation on the table.

This mail is to identify a deadline for other solutions to the example
scenarios to be documented as internet drafts, showing how the solution
works for those scenarios. This deadline is:

        January 11th 2008

It is appropriate fo these documents to identify any other scenarios
where such a solution is appropriate. Any other input is also welcome in
identifying other scenarios.

If we have no such internet-drafts by this deadline, we will proceed
with completing the solution we have.


Regards

Keith



_______________________________________________
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