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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

These cases can all be handled by having intermediate entity use a 
unique user part, together with its own domain name, to construct a 
contact address for each terminal UA that it is registering. Then when 
it receives an incoming request to one of these uris it can simply 
translate it, using the user part as a key to its own local mappings.

We don't need anything new to solve these cases.

	Paul

[e-mail] wrote:
>  
> There are other cases similar to what is described in section  2.1 Unknown Aliases of J. Rosenberg draft that should be taken into account. 
> 
> Those cases are where the customer side is composed of several SIP terminals that access the network through an intermediate entity which registers their associated aliases with its contact address. Thus, such client side is seen from the network as a single client having several aliases (aggregated endpoints). Moreover, such client side may be a mini private network composed of several entities. In these configurations, the intermediate entity is in charge of routeing incoming calls inside the client domain and may need to behave as a SIP proxy for incoming SIP messages.  
> 
> As examples of such configuration:
> - Corporate networks: in that case the PBX register all the served individual user identities with its contact address and routes incoming calls toward the individual called users.
> - Home networks: the Home Gateway may need to register on behalf of all the served terminals.  The Home Gateway is in charge of routeing incoming calls toward the individual called users. 
> 
> J. Rosenberg draft seems give a good solution to take into account these configurations.
>    
> Best regards,
> 
> Youssef
> 
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Envoyé : lundi 14 janvier 2008 17:58
>> À : [e-mail]
>> Objet : [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
>>
>> (As WG chair)
>>
>> In fulfilment of our charter items of
>>
>> 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)
>>
>> We now have a couple of proposals on the table for solving 
>> the problem.
>>
>> The original draft from Jonathan and which led to the 
>> creation of the charter items by the WG is unfortunately 
>> expired, but is at:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01.txt
>>
>> The alternative document from Christer, etc is at:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-holmberg-sip-target-
>> uri-delive
>> ry-00.txt
>>
>> We obviously need to make a decision between the two 
>> approaches so please attempt to address the following 
>> specific points via the mailing
>> list:
>>
>> 1)	Problem cases: These are summarised in section 4.4 of
>> draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01 and from my read of the 
>> other draft, I don't believe that this draft adds any others. 
>> If you believe there are other cases that should be covered 
>> by the solution, then please identify them. If there is 
>> support on any new problem cases, I would encourage the 
>> authors of both drafts to add text concerning these problem cases.
>>
>> 2)	Clarifications: If for any reason you don't understand either
>> draft, or believe that there are technical issues that are 
>> not represented in the current draft, please post your 
>> questions / comments to the list. I would encourage authors 
>> of both drafts to revise as frequently as appropriate to 
>> reflect the current state of discussion.
>>
>> 3)	Support for either position. If you wish to indicate support for
>> either position please do so, but please accompany this is 
>> technical reasoning as to why you have this position, as that 
>> will help other members of the WG form a position.
>>
>> I would encourage as much list discussion as possible before 
>> Philadelphia. I suspect we will need to have a discussion at 
>> the face-to-face meeting in Philadephia, but list discussion 
>> is essential prior to that. If we can solve this positions on 
>> list, then well and good, and even better (that is how we are 
>> meant to make decisions).
>>
>> 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
> 


_______________________________________________
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