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

"Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 21 January 2008 14:03 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 1JGxEy-0000US-AG; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:03:08 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JGxEx-0000UM-B8 for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:03:07 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGxEw-0000UE-VT for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:03:07 -0500
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGxEw-0007mK-7a for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:03:06 -0500
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 744C721104; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:03:04 +0100 (CET)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ab5e9bb0000007e1-7e-4794a6181061
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 5A5B8203A0; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:03:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.4]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:03:03 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statementforRequest-URI, retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:03:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF042A0261@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D05941CF@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statementforRequest-URI, retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!)
Thread-Index: AchZPU+/dzx0k6eGS1WWuhtw80L2kAADrUvgABZyvrAADtRW8AABPONgAJQFFoA=
References: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918001AC02E9@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com><CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF040266B1@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se><47878B1E.3010303@cisco.com><0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0549A47@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net><1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1428F69B@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com><CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF04051C9D@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se><1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1428F846@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com><CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF040960B7@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se><1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1434B83B@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> A<CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF040D69C7@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se><0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0549D3F@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net><1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1438F1B0@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com><478CEFB4.6070002@zonnet.nl><CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF0413D587@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>A <"CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF04173CB8"@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se><" 0 D5F89 FAC29 E2 C41B98A6A762 007F5D0593CFF"@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> A<CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF041743D6@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se><0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0593E13@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net><CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF041C939B@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se><C8D63C78-437F-430E-950C-2E63C69E3CEF@softarmor.com><E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC306E4ED4501@mail.acmepacket.com><0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0594068@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net><E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC306E4ED497B@mail.acmepacket.com> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D05941CF@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
From: "Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens.com>, "Hadriel Kaplan" <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>, "Dean Willis" <dean.willis@softarmor.com>, "IETF SIP List" <sip@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jan 2008 14:03:03.0941 (UTC) FILETIME=[571A9B50:01C85C36]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a8a20a483a84f747e56475e290ee868e
Cc:
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

Hi,

>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.

It's strange that we have convinced you about that, since it not the
use-case we have been talking about...  :)

Regards,

Christer


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan@acmepacket.com]
> > 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:john.elwell@siemens.com]
> > > 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 
> > 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