[Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy - new version of the draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery draft

["Elwell, John" <[e-mail]>]

Christer,

Thanks for this revision, which makes things somewhat clearer. I do have
a couple of comments:

1. I am not sure I agree with the assertions in section 4 concerning
issues with the mechanisms in loose-route. Taking example 1, the Route
header field should contain enough entries to get you to the registered
contact, not just to an intermediate proxy. Therefore this situation
should not arise with a correctly implemented home proxy. It is not
clear to me how example 2 could arise either, for similar reasons. The
MGC case can be resolved by taking into account the option tag in the
REGISTER request, or if it is permanently registered, through
provisioning.

2. Comparing the mechanism proposed with the loose-route mechanism, my
understanding is:
a)When retargeting occurs, the loose-route mechanism places the new
target in the Request URI. Your proposal places the new target in both
the Request-URI and the Target header field.
b) When rerouting, the loose-route mechanism places the new route (i.e.,
the registered contact) in the Route header field. Your proposal places
the new route in the Request-URI (the latter as per RFC 3261).
So the two mechanisms solve exactly the same problems using a slightly
different mechanism. Correct?

3. How P-Called-Party-ID fits into this is not really relevant from an
IETF perspective - it seems there are some 3GPP-specific situations
where the contents of P-Called-Party-ID will not equal the contents of
Target. Correct?

4. If my suggestion in point 1 above that the loose-route mechanism does
not suffer from the problems suggested, then each mechanism will work
and each addresses the same problem. So it is just down to a beauty
contest between the two. Correct?

John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 16 January 2008 08:41
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Paul Kyzivat; Elwell, John; Jeroen 
> van Bemmel; Francois Audet
> Subject: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via 
> proxy - new version of the 
> draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery draft
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> We've uploaded a new version (-01) of the Target draft.
> 
> We've tried to make things more clear. I've also removed all 
> text about
> P-Called-Party-ID, except from one chapter where we try to explain the
> semantical difference between Target and P-CPI.
> 
> You can also find the draft from:
> http://users.piuha.net/cholmber/drafts/draft-holmberg-sip-targ
> et-uri-del
> ivery-01.txt
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 


_______________________________________________
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