RE: [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,

I hear what you are saying, but I don't really see that the points you
raised in section 4 are real limitations of the loose route mechanism.

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 16 January 2008 11:06
> To: Elwell, John; [e-mail]
> Cc: Paul Kyzivat; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Francois Audet
> Subject: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to 
> UAS via proxy - new version of the 
> draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery draft
> 
> 
> 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
> 


_______________________________________________
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