RE: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841
"Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 10 January 2008 14:42 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 1JCyc4-0000gZ-4N; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:42:32 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1JCyc2-0000e4-81
for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:42:30 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCyc1-0000bp-T7
for sip@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:42:29 -0500
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.60])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCybz-0008MS-D2
for sip@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:42:29 -0500
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1])
by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id
586CB213CC; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:42:16 +0100 (CET)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-aef95bb0000030cf-76-47862ec86a35
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121])
by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id
2868A21271; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:42:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.4]) by
esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:42:15 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:42:14 +0100
Message-ID: <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF03FD0FDC@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <478629C1.5090404@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841
Thread-Index: AchTlKkfbjahEowLQJW4QfKN3RiF1gAAhS/Q
References: <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF03F7A681@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
<038901c852c3$d222b750$bd4a6c6b@sisodomain.com>
<4784D96A.5010104@cisco.com>
<040101c852e3$a627f730$bd4a6c6b@sisodomain.com>
<004401c8533f$8d197500$bd4a6c6b@sisodomain.com>
<CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF03FA6BD8@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
<006401c85386$59ec2370$bd4a6c6b@sisodomain.com>
<478629C1.5090404@cisco.com>
From: "Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "Paul Kyzivat" <pkyzivat@cisco.com>,
"Mahesh Anjanappa" <mahesha@samsung.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2008 14:42:15.0416 (UTC)
FILETIME=[FE25F780:01C85396]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: 97c820c82c68af374c4e382a80dc5017
Cc: sip@ietf.org
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
Paul, Regarding the matching, are you saying that reading RFC3840 is enough to understand how the matching is done in a "SIP environment"? Or, do I also need to read RFC2533? I have some questions on the matching, but I will come back to them later. I still have some reading to do. Regards, Christer > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat@cisco.com] > Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2008 16:21 > To: Mahesh Anjanappa > Cc: Christer Holmberg; sip@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 > > > > Mahesh Anjanappa wrote: > > Yes the ';' is a mistake. But i'm not sure if each Contact should > > contain "alice@atlanta.com" > > Well, it has to have a URI to be syntactically correct. > > Your problem is that you are trying to express something that > cannot be expressed with the callee caps syntax. It only maps > to a subset of the syntax supported by RFC 2533. > > > because the predicate that i'm trying to represent is as follows > > meanig to say alice supports a communication which whose > capability is > > Duplex Audio + One Way Video. > > You just can't say that. Sorry. > > A little history may help you to understand, though it won't > solve your > problem: > > The initial draft for callerprefs came out a very long time > ago. (The earliest draft I have is -03 which came out in > november of 2000.) It set the basic syntax and the initial > set of capabilities. > > It was however very weak on the semantics of matching. I > eventually got involved because I was interested in it and > identified many of the semantic issues. Jonathan and I worked > on it for a long time. > Eventually, because of some review comments I think, Jonathan > tried to define the semantics using RFC 2533 because it was a > standard that seemed to be at least partially suitable to the > task. (In retrospect this may not have been such a good idea, > since it adds an additional layer of complexity.) > > RFC 2533 syntax is much richer. But it was not a goal to > provide that richness. (Mapping that all onto SIP header > syntax would be awful.) It was only used as an intermediate > form to define the semantics of the SIP headers. > > Its understood that there are lots of things one might want > to express that you can't express. > > If you aren't already aware of it, you might want to look at > RFC 4596 (Guidelines for Usage of the Session Initiation > Protocol (SIP) Caller Preferences Extension). > > Paul > > > If each of the COntact contains alice@atlanta.com wouldnt it be > > interpreted as " alice supports duplex audio and oneway video > > separatley and not both at the same time". > > Actually i'm not quite sure how to represesnt the predicate in the > > Contact header correctly, hence my Queries. It all stems from the > > statement which you too noted " There MUST only be one > instance of any > > feature tag in feature-param." in RFC 3840 > > > > > > Predicate: > > ------------ > > & ( & (sip.audio) (sip.duplex=full) ) > > ( & (sip.video) (sip.duplex=receive-only) ) > > > > regards > > Mahesh > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christer Holmberg" > > <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> > > To: "Mahesh Anjanappa" <mahesha@samsung.com>om>; "Paul Kyzivat" > > <pkyzivat@cisco.com> > > Cc: <sip@ietf.org> > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:30 AM > > Subject: RE: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 > > > > > > > > Shouldn't each Contact also contain "alice@atlanta.com"? > > > > Also, why do you have ";" at the end of each Contact? > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mahesh Anjanappa [mailto:mahesha@samsung.com] > >> Sent: 10. tammikuuta 2008 6:16 > >> To: Paul Kyzivat > >> Cc: sip@ietf.org; Christer Holmberg > >> Subject: Re: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 > >> > >> hi Paul, > >> Sorry there is a mistake in Contact header i > >> described.Following is what i wanted to: > >> Contact:sip:alice@atlanta.com; > >> Contact:audio;duplex=full; > >> Contact:video;duplex=recieve-only; > >> > >> Thanks > >> Mahesh > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Mahesh Anjanappa" <mahesha@samsung.com> > >> To: "Paul Kyzivat" <pkyzivat@cisco.com> > >> Cc: <sip@ietf.org>rg>; "Christer Holmberg" > >> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:48 PM > >> Subject: Re: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 > >> > >> > >> > Thanks Paul. > >> > So would it be right if i have a Contact Headers describing > >> Duplex Audio & > >> > one-way Video Capabilities as follows? > >> > > >> > Contact:sip:alice@atlanta.com; > >> > Contact:sip:audio;duplex=full; > >> > Contact:sip:video;duplex=recieve-only; > >> > > >> > NOTE: The Predicate(for above) for which i'm attempting is > >> > & ( & (sip.audio) (sip.duplex=full) ) > >> > ( & (sip.video) (sip.duplex=receive-only) ) > >> > > >> > regards > >> > Mahesh > >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Kyzivat" > >> <pkyzivat@cisco.com> > >> > To: "Mahesh Anjanappa" <mahesha@samsung.com> > >> > Cc: "Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>om>; > >> <sip@ietf.org> > >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:55 PM > >> > Subject: Re: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Mahesh Anjanappa wrote: > >> >>> hi > >> >>> That is my understanding as well. But if that is the case > >> then it should > >> >>> apply to Contact header as well > >> >>> when describing Capabilities using Feature parameters in > >> Contact Header. > >> >>> But i'm not sure if it applies the same way. I had posted > >> this question > >> >>> long ago but didnt get any comments on it. > >> >> > >> >> The rule forbidding multiple instances of a parameter > >> applies to all > >> >> headers, so it applies to Contact. E.g. the following > is illegal: > >> >> > >> >> Contact:sip:alice@atlanta.com;methods="INVITE";methods="CANCEL" > >> >> > >> >> Paul > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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] Question on RFC3840/3841 Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 Mahesh Anjanappa
- [Sip] Re: Question on RFC3840/3841 Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 Mahesh Anjanappa
- [Sip] RE: Question on RFC3840/3841 Christer Holmberg
- [Sip] Question on Accept ABNF Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 Mahesh Anjanappa
- RE: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 Mahesh Anjanappa
- Re: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 Paul Kyzivat
- RE: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 Paul Kyzivat
- RE: [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 Christer Holmberg
- [Sip] Question on RFC3840/3841 - matching of list… Christer Holmberg