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

"DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 14 January 2008 16:58 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 1JESdj-0000WB-Us; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:58:23 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JESdi-0000Vf-Lq for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:58:22 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JESdi-0000VX-An for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:58:22 -0500
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com ([135.245.0.37]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JESdh-0006jd-Js for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:58:21 -0500
Received: from ilexp01.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-1.lucent.com [135.3.39.1]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m0EGwFLn026855 for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:58:20 -0600 (CST)
Received: from DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com ([135.248.187.66]) by ilexp01.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:58:09 -0600
Received: from DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.20]) by DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:58:07 +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
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:58:06 +0100
Message-ID: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918001B09071@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
Thread-index: AchWzqJNXVX4sjNuQSaW1d5oVZlILg==
From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: <sip@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2008 16:58:07.0651 (UTC) FILETIME=[A2E94F30:01C856CE]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Subject: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
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

(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 sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip