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

"Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens.com> Fri, 11 January 2008 17:01 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 1JDNG6-0008FN-V8; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:01:30 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JDNG5-00088z-Au for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:01:29 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDNG5-00088r-0e for sip@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:01:29 -0500
Received: from mailgate.siemenscomms.co.uk ([195.171.110.225]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDNG2-0000o2-3s for sip@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:01:29 -0500
Received: from GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net ([137.223.219.235]) by siemenscomms.co.uk (PMDF V6.3-x14 #31430) with ESMTP id <0JUH00F5MOM8O6@siemenscomms.co.uk> for sip@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:01:23 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:01:21 +0000
From: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens.com>
Subject: RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
In-reply-to: <47878B1E.3010303@cisco.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Message-id: <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0549A47@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Topic: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
thread-index: AchUZtW5bDMRNv3qRbeBDq53RksY6wAC6fXw
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
References: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918001AC02E9@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF040266B1@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <47878B1E.3010303@cisco.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 20f22c03b5c66958bff5ef54fcda6e48
Cc: sip@ietf.org, "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

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:pkyzivat@cisco.com] 
> Sent: 11 January 2008 15:29
> To: Christer Holmberg
> Cc: sip@ietf.org; 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:drage@alcatel-lucent.com] 
> >> Sent: 9. tammikuuta 2008 18:32
> >> To: sip@ietf.org
> >> 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: sip@ietf.org
> >>> 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 
> >> 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
> 


_______________________________________________
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