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

["Christer Holmberg" <[e-mail]>]

Hi John, 

>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.

The examples are not meant to show bugs in the loose-route mechanism.
They are meant to help people understand the limitations with the
loose-route mechanism.
 
>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?

Yes. The two solutions intend to solve the same problem.
 
>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?

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?

See question 1.

We believe that our solution does not have the same limitations as the
loose-route solution. But, again, both solutions intend to solve the
same problem.

Regards,

Christer






> > -----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