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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Christer,

I have some questions and comments:

- I don't understand your examples in section 3. They are a bit sketchy 
about the assumptions they are making, and in notation. I get lost about 
which referenced component has which address, etc. I am far from 
convinced that these are problems with appropriate use of the mechanism.

- It seems from your analysis of use cases that it is P-Called-Party 
that solves many of them, not Target. So both headers seem to be part of 
the solution. Its not entirely clear to me at the moment whether the 
R-URI in the loose-route approach aligns with Target or P-Called-Party. 
Since they are different, it can't align with both. So there must be 
some features it doesn't cover. I haven't fully grokked that yet.

	Paul


Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We have submitted a draft with an alternative proposal.
> 
> It can also be found at:
> 
> http://users.piuha.net/cholmber/drafts/draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-del
> ivery-00.txt
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Sent: 9. tammikuuta 2008 18:32
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to 
>> UAS via proxy
>>
>> A reminder of the deadline on the 11th January for submitting 
>> alternative proposals on the way forward.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Keith 
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:27 PM
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
>>>
>>> (As WG chair)
>>>
>>> We have a couple of milestones that we generated as a result of 
>>> discussion of
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loo
>>> se-route-01.txt
>>>
>>> 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)
>>>
>>> This work is currently stalled and the editor needs input.
>>>
>>> The document contains various example scenarios where a solution is 
>>> required, for which there appears to be no dispute that a 
>> solution is 
>>> needed.
>>>
>>> The document proposes one solution to resolve these example 
>> scenarios, 
>>> but this solution is not gaining consensus. At least one other 
>>> solution has been talked about, but there is no 
>> documentation on the 
>>> table.
>>>
>>> This mail is to identify a deadline for other solutions to 
>> the example 
>>> scenarios to be documented as internet drafts, showing how the 
>>> solution works for those scenarios. This deadline is:
>>>
>>> 	January 11th 2008
>>>
>>> It is appropriate fo these documents to identify any other 
>> scenarios 
>>> where such a solution is appropriate. Any other input is 
>> also welcome 
>>> in identifying other scenarios.
>>>
>>> If we have no such internet-drafts by this deadline, we 
>> will proceed 
>>> with completing the solution we have.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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