RE: [SIP] Interworking Between SIP/SDP and H.323

"Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert" <rfairlie@nuera.com> Sat, 03 February 2001 01:05 UTC

Message-ID: <E79883AEA37FD411A58C00508BAC5F4B710116@exchange1.nuera.com>
From: "Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert" <rfairlie@nuera.com>
To: 'Kundan Singh' <kns10@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: sip@lists.bell-labs.com, sip-h323@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [SIP] Interworking Between SIP/SDP and H.323
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C08D7D.3B4F8730"
Sender: sip-admin@lists.bell-labs.com
Errors-To: sip-admin@lists.bell-labs.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:04:17 -0800

Hi Kundan,

Do you see any problems with forming the destination h323-id with the
display name from the To: and the SIP URL from the Request-URL?

Robert.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kundan Singh [mailto:kns10@cs.columbia.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 5:21 AM
> To: Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert
> Cc: sip@lists.bell-labs.com; sip-h323@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [SIP] Interworking Between SIP/SDP and H.323
> 
> 
> 
> > Hi Henning & Kundan,
> >
> > I have a query with regards to draft-singh-sip-h323-01.txt.
> >
> > The draft states that the destination information from the 
> H.323 call be
> > derived from the To URL in a new INVITE (see A.1.2). It 
> seems that the
> > request-URI is ignored entirely (despite the fact that some 
> of the call
> 
> This is an error. The signaling gateway should use
> the Request-URI instead of To: URL. This occurs at more than
> one place in the draft.
> 
> We will correct this in the next version.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out the mistake.
> 
> Kundan
> 
> > flows are annotated with "INVITE sip:kns10@cs.columbia.edu").
> >
> > I do not see how this will work when a SIP UA or proxy 
> redirects (or proxies
> > with updating the request) call to a H.323 device.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > INVITE sip:rfairlie@nuera.com SIP/2.0
> > To: "Robert Fairlie-Cuninghame" <sip:rfairlie@nuera.com>
> >
> > is sent to the proxy at nuera.com which responds with a 
> SIP/2.0 302 Temp
> > Moved
> > Contact: 
> <sip:1000@h323-gatekeeper.nuera.com;maddr=h323-iwf.nuera.com>
> >
> > How will this work if the IWF ignores the Request-URI ?
> >
> > If the IWF instead uses the request URI in the H323 SETUP 
> destinationInfo,
> > is there anythign wrong with it using the display name from 
> the To? Unless a
> > 380 Alternate Service is issued then the display name 
> should still be
> > correct.
> >
> > On a related note in the base SIP spec, if a 380 Alternate 
> Service is issued
> > (which requires user interaction), the spec needs to be 
> clarified whether
> > the new call attempt will use a new call-leg with the To 
> field changed
> > apprpriately.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Robert.
> >
>

RE: [SIP] Interworking Between SIP/SDP and H.323 Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert
[SIP] Interworking Between SIP/SDP and H.323 Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert
Re: [SIP] Interworking Between SIP/SDP and H.323 Kundan Singh
RE: [SIP] Interworking Between SIP/SDP and H.323 Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert