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

"Francois Audet" <audet@nortel.com> Tue, 15 January 2008 01:08 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 1JEaHx-00062r-D3; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:08:25 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JEaHw-00062l-FS for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:08:24 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEaHw-00062d-5l for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:08:24 -0500
Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com ([47.140.192.56]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEaHv-0001JR-Qh for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:08:24 -0500
Received: from zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.71]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m0F18KJ19511; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:08:20 GMT
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:08:19 -0600
Message-ID: <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1434B83B@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF040960B7@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
Thread-Index: AchUZtW5bDMRNv3qRbeBDq53RksY6wAC6fXwAAREC3AAAN5tsAAAvlqgAIQb/vAAHhqlMA==
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>
From: "Francois Audet" <audet@nortel.com>
To: "Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Cc: sip@ietf.org, "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>, "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

Hum. I guess then P-Called-ID would then be useful with Loose-route
as well (although now I'm thinking that History-Info covers it).

I think explaining all that in great and precise details, with a concrete 
example would be very useful.

And then we could compare P-Target with Loose-route. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 03:56
> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> Cc: sip@ietf.org; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Paul Kyzivat; Elwell, John
> Subject: RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters 
> to UAS via proxy
> 
> 
> Hi Francois, 
> 
> >I think what you meant by Target was more the "Current" 
> >target as opposed to the Initiatl Target.
> 
> Yes.
>  
> >And if that's the case, then I don't see why it is different from 
> >P-Called-ID (although I might be missing something with what the 
> >P-Called_ID is supposed to be).
> 
> In the draft we try to explain the difference. But, we are 
> working on the text to make it more clear.
> 
> The P-CPI is inserted when the R-URI is rewritten by the 
> Contact address of the UAS. RFC3455 calls that operation 
> "retargeting", but we don't think that is the definition for 
> retarget used in the ua-loose-route draft, which says:
> 
> "When a home proxy receives a request and accesses a location 
> service, the resulting contact(s) obtained from the location 
> service are considered the last hop in the route towards the 
> entity addressed by the Request-URI.  Since that target, 
> almost by definition, can claim the identity of the URI prior 
> to translation, the operation is one of routing and not retargeting."
> 
> So, if we follow the definitions in the ua-loose-route draft, 
> P-CPI would be inserted due to a reroute - not retarget.
> 
> But, no matter whether we call it retarget or reroute, the 
> point is that the P-CPI is inserted when the R-URI is 
> rewritten with the Contact address of the UAS. The scope of 
> Target is wider than that, and can be used in any retargeting 
> situation.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
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