RE: [Sip] Strict, Semi-Strict and Loose mode in RPH - not a good fit for ets and wps

Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Mon, 08 November 2004 18:06 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07711 for <sip-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:06:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRDug-0000Mg-MY for sip-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:06:49 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRDnX-0004YN-Fl; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:59:23 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRDhE-0003ex-L9 for sip@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:52:52 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06795 for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:52:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from amer-mta02.csc.com ([20.137.2.248]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRDho-00005t-Se for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:53:29 -0500
Received: from csc.com (va-fch34.csc.com [20.6.39.227]) by amer-mta02.csc.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id iA8Hqktc018246; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:52:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: [Sip] Strict, Semi-Strict and Loose mode in RPH - not a good fit for ets and wps
To: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002
Message-ID: <OF334CCCC4.4A8C615A-ON85256F46.006134A1-85256F46.0062420B@csc.com>
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:51:10 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on VA-FCH34/SRV/CSC(Release 6.0.3|September 26, 2003) at 11/08/2004 12:53:35 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
Cc: fonashp@ncs.gov, Darren E Pado <dpado@csc.com>, Saud Negash <snegash@csc.com>, mosleyv@ncs.gov, Richard F Kaczmarek <rkaczmarek@csc.com>, sip@ietf.org, nyquetek@msn.com, a.ephrath@ieee.org, Ken Carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>, KENNETH.R.ERNEY@saic.com, suracif@ncs.gov, Dennis Q Berg <dberg3@csc.com>
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>
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44

James said
---
> > 2 SIP element ignores a namespace it does not recognize (loose)

To this, remember the ID does not say to "fail" the call, just that
Request. This is one way to inform the calling UAC to know it included a
namespace or priority value that was not recognizable (meaning not
ets.0/1/2/3/4 or wps.0/1/2/3/4).

There is no way to inform the UAC of this issue within the SIP Request
(with the bad namespace.priority-value) without failing the request.
Meaning, there can be no preferential treatment without the sending element

being told so. SIP doesn't have a "pass, but this wasn't a good choice"
provisional response like other protocols.

To the user, they might not notice several SIP Request failures, the person

is merely waiting for the call to be set up (still under a second).
---
OK, please educate me.

If it "fails" that request, but doesn't "fail" the call, does that mean
that the UAC resends the request without the RPH?

If that is what it means, then, for a call which originates in a SIP/IP
domain, but goes to the PSTN, it would reach the PSTN gateway with no
indication that it was entitled to special treatment in the PSTN.

While that is better than failing the call, it still isn't the desired
behavior.

If there is a way that the SIP element can "fail the request but not the
call", AND make sure that the appropriate RPH namespace and value (and
authentication)  get to the PSTN gateway, then it might be OK.

Janet


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




_______________________________________________
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