[Sip] draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01: lr impacts

Hi Jonathan,

Draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01 proposes the use of 'lr' parameter
within registered and redirected contact URIs.  The 'lr' is currently
not listed as optional within RFC3261.  Thus the additional impact upon
registrars not supporting this draft should maybe be reflected with the
Backwards Compatibility section.

Concerning the use of 'lr' within registered contact, what contact
(contact-param) should be placed within the Route?  More specifically,
should it be the one received within REGISTER or the one sent within the
REGISTER response?  I ask because there are Contact header parameters
(contact-params) which can be added or modified by the registrar.

Concerning the use of 'lr' within registered contact, the draft should
mention what should occur for contact-params applicable to registration
but not relevant (or would appear strange) within Route.  The 'q' and
'expires' parameters are some which fall into this category.  Section 10
currently shows none of the contact-params being copied to the rr-param
portion of the route-param.  Was this intentional or an error within the
example?

There are also sip-uri parameters which are valid within a Contact but
not currently optional to include within Route.  And some of these like
'ttl' might also be valid within a request-uri.  I thought that I'd
mention it incase you think it warrants discussion within the draft.

Thanks,
Brett

_______________________________________________
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