RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statementforRequest-URI, retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!)

["Elwell, John" <[e-mail]>]

Paul,

Yes, that was my feeling.

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 18 January 2008 16:00
> To: Elwell, John
> Cc: Hadriel Kaplan; Dean Willis; IETF SIP List
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem 
> statementforRequest-URI,retargeting, and SIP routing (long, 
> but read it!)
> 
> 
> 
> Elwell, John wrote:
> > Hadriel,
> > 
> > Well, I have been having a side thread with Christer and 
> Hans Erik, and
> > the only difference other than syntax that they could 
> convince me of was
> > support for UAs that do not register, in that with 
> loose-route you would
> > need additional provisioning in the domain proxy to say that the UA
> > (gateway or whatever) supports loose-route. Given that you 
> would need
> > provisioning in the proxy anyway for such UAs, I didn't see 
> this as a
> > big deal, but it is a difference.
> 
> In the case of registration, it is indicated by the ;lr param on the 
> contact. In the case of provisioning, you need to provision a 
> contact, 
> so its just a matter of provisioning it with ;lr. That is 
> *still* just 
> provisioning a uri, so its not really a difference.
> 
> 	Paul
> 
> > John 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> >> Sent: 18 January 2008 15:15
> >> To: Elwell, John; Dean Willis; IETF SIP List
> >> Subject: RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement 
> >> forRequest-URI,retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!)
> >>
> >> Hey John,
> >> Inline...
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Elwell, John [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:48 AM
> >>>> But in the re-targeting scenario such as:
> >>>>                     RTRG                    RRT
> >>>>                    +---+                   +---+
> >>>>                    |R1 |                   |R2 |
> >>>>                 B /+---+\ C             E /+---+\ F
> >>>>             RT   /       \  RT      RT   /       \  RT
> >>>>            +---+/         \+---+ D +---+/         \+---+
> >>>>            |P1 |           |P2 +---+P3 |           |P4 |
> >>>>         A /+---+           +---+   +---+           +---+\ G
> >>>>          /                                               \
> >>>>    +---+/                                                 \+---+
> >>>>    |UAC|                                                   |UAS|
> >>>>    +---+                                                   +---+
> >>>>
> >>>> UA-Loose-routing wants the req-uri seen on connection 
> "C" I think.
> >>>> To header gives you A.
> >>>> PCPID gives you E.
> >>>> Hist-Info gives you A,B,C,D,E,F.
> >>> [JRE] According to Dean's definition of RT, it does not change the
> >>> Request-URI (only the Route header field presumably, or 
> >> maybe not even
> >>> that).
> >>> So C, D and E are the same. Also A and B are the same, and 
> >> F and G are
> >>> the same.
> >>> So I think:
> >>> - UA-Loose-routing gives you C/D/E
> >>> - To gives you A/B
> >>> - PCPID gives you C/D/E
> >>> - Target gives you C/D/E
> >>> - Hist-info gives you A/B, C/D/E and F/G.
> >> Yes, I agree that is the *theory*.  :)
> >> I drew it that way though so we could argue about what the 
> >> UAS/UALR-draft _wants_ to happen vs. what _will_ happen if P2 
> >> or P3 are not purely RT's and didn't support a new draft. 
> >> (Since it seemed the conversation was going that way 
> >> previously on this list, for example when Christer pointed 
> >> out the difference between Target and PCPID)
> >>
> >> For example, I think there is more than just a syntax 
> >> difference between Christer's sip-target-uri-delivery draft 
> >> (STUD?) and Jonathan's UALR approach.  Though I have no idea 
> >> which one is better.
> >>
> >> -hadriel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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