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

["Francois Audet" <[e-mail]>]

I'm also totally confused now about what is being proposed.

The Target seems identical to the To header field.

I tought that what you (Christer) was arguing for is using the P-Called-Header
instead of the new loose route proposal, i.e., not for the "initial target", but for
the "current target".

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elwell, John [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 09:01
> To: Paul Kyzivat; Christer Holmberg
> Cc: [e-mail]; DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Subject: RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters 
> to UAS via proxy
> 
> Christer,
> 
> In addition to Paul's concerns, I am having difficulty 
> understanding why the To header field is insufficient for the 
> cases where the Target header field is proposed. The initial 
> source of this confusion was the statement "the Target header 
> field represents
>    the initial target identity that was used to initiate a session to
>    the target"
> 
> So we now have 4 fields (ignoring Route):
> - To
> - Target
> - P-Called-ID
> - Request-URI
> I think it would benefit from a clearer exposition of the 
> semantics and relationship between these.
> 
> John
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 11 January 2008 15:29
> > To: Christer Holmberg
> > Cc: [e-mail]; DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> > Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS 
> > via proxy
> > 
> > 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-targ
> > et-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
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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