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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Fri, 11 January 2008 15:28 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 1JDLoE-0003di-4d; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:28:38 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JDLoC-0003cS-B9 for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:28:36 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDLoB-0003c9-VQ for sip@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:28:36 -0500
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDLoB-0001OA-Cn for sip@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:28:35 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,272,1196658000"; d="scan'208";a="83052174"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2008 10:28:32 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0BFSV6R024859; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:28:31 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0BFSL7P013060; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:28:30 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:28:28 -0500
Received: from [161.44.174.128] ([161.44.174.128]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:28:28 -0500
Message-ID: <47878B1E.3010303@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:28:30 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
References: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918001AC02E9@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF040266B1@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF040266B1@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jan 2008 15:28:28.0455 (UTC) FILETIME=[9D6BE370:01C85466]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3813; t=1200065311; x=1200929311; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pkyzivat@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Kyzivat=20<pkyzivat@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sip]=20RE=3A=20Delivering=20request-UR I=20and=20parameters=20to=20UAS=20via=20proxy |Sender:=20 |To:=20Christer=20Holmberg=20<christer.holmberg@ericsson.co m>; bh=CMDUEvwqFuNDUc675ayzyr3qihS3zulYf/iNfAyaw0Y=; b=NgobFzsvupFxuT1yWJw4UotZHo0b7a4Bnydmw3l0CYNR/PSGQHgVd7djki RFuUrBJ/rxN0PbwV4un6B55vy7uJkFzRay8WpvIFuxpTkYLKbMlP6R2+BNzZ 5FWH357URo;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=pkyzivat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1676547e4f33b5e63227e9c02bd359e3
Cc: sip@ietf.org, "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.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>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

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:drage@alcatel-lucent.com] 
>> Sent: 9. tammikuuta 2008 18:32
>> To: sip@ietf.org
>> 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: sip@ietf.org
>>> 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 
>> sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip 
>> Use sipping@ietf.org 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 sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping@ietf.org 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 sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip