Re: [Sip] questions about drat-bjorkner-serviceroute-00

Henrik Gustafsson <> Thu, 13 September 2001 12:52 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02446 for <>; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:52:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA07609; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA07586 for <>; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:27:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01684 for <>; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:27:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:08:32 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:05:02 +0200
From: Henrik Gustafsson <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.1) Gecko/20010607
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Timothy SOETENS <>
CC: sip mailing list <>
Subject: Re: [Sip] questions about drat-bjorkner-serviceroute-00
References: <> <> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Sep 2001 12:08:32.0303 (UTC) FILETIME=[CE841BF0:01C13C4C]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Timothy SOETENS wrote:

>So the chain of service-route headers is actually a set of application
>servers in the originating domain, each responsible for a different
Yes, that's true. I think it is important to point at that the 
is not the ideal service compositioning mechanism, it is just one
possible tool.

This is also related to the currently very active loose-routing thread.
I belive adding complexity to the existing route header is worse than
adding complexity to the protocol with a new relative simple header.

>>If a message contains both route-headers and service-route-headers, it is a
>>result of an error and the damage is minimized by just go for the route.
>I think this should be repeated in section 4.2. As the text is stated
>now, section 4.2 says to go for the service-route header, at least that
>s how I interpreted it.
Yes, it is somewhat unclear. Now it is described at the end of 4.1.


>>/Henrik Gustafsson
>>Timothy SOETENS wrote:
>>>Hi All,
>>>I have some questions regarding the draft
>>>I think it is a good thing to route requests according to the service a
>>>user is subscribed for, but still I am confused in how the service-route
>>>header is used.
>>>1. "The service-route header should only be inserted in the first
>>>request in a call leg." (4.1, page 4) Is it not possible that you first
>>>contact the callee before deciding on which service to use?
>>>2. "If a request contians both route headers and service-route headers
>>>the route headers MUST be used for request routing." (4.1, page 5)
>>>Indeed, if the route headers are used for request routing, it is not
>>>useful to insert service-route headers in the subsequent requests.
>>>However, I have the feeling that service-route headers can be useful in
>>>subsequent requests.

Sip mailing list
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use for questions on current sip
Use for new developments on the application of sip