Re: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Tue, 15 January 2008 13:01 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 1JElPn-0008QR-R4; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:01:15 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JElPl-0008KZ-Iy for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:01:13 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JElPk-0008HG-Ud for sip@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:01:12 -0500
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JElPk-00040w-78 for sip@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:01:12 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,287,1196658000"; d="scan'208";a="83377783"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Jan 2008 08:01:04 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0FD138Q013570; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:01:03 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0FD13ua013244; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:01:03 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:00:26 -0500
Received: from [10.86.243.168] ([10.86.243.168]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:00:26 -0500
Message-ID: <478CAE6C.3040703@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:00:28 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
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> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1434B83B@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> A <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF040D69C7@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0549D3F@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF0410E399@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF0410E399@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2008 13:00:26.0466 (UTC) FILETIME=[98FEEC20:01C85776]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=6479; t=1200402063; x=1201266063; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pkyzivat@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Kyzivat=20<pkyzivat@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sip]=20RE=3A=20Delivering=20request-UR I=20and=20parameters=20to=20UAS=20via=20proxy |Sender:=20 |To:=20Christer=20Holmberg=20<christer.holmberg@ericsson.co m>; bh=YUXo9dgj5cOX3EbdAT1QMCruh6JrjOfIc/9K+hOnKPc=; b=qJgoNUkkMvw3wxvy14/eVI6uSCELVMrgIJDdvnK29I94NaVYt8c6/kNy47 zSJop/wEhfVMdDTR/sHnayLEzx/fxmg3jruW+3+RObDxBkXNp7xjVK40VzYU gyEvoz8RVy;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=pkyzivat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 86f85b2f88b0d50615aed44a7f9e33c7
Cc: sip@ietf.org, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, Francois Audet <audet@nortel.com>, "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens.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
I am still confused by the distinction between Target and P-CPI. I agree that you have described rules for updating Target that are different from those for updating P-CPI. But it seems to me that is a distinction without a significant difference. For the recipient of the request, the two are used the same way, toward the same end. If anything I would view the rules for Target to be just a bug fix on P-CPI. Paul Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi John, > >> I guess what still confuses me is, when both Target and P-CPI >> are used, which comes first, i.e., which represents the >> earlier target? When I read the draft, I thought Target was >> earlier. From various clarifying emails I now get the >> impression that Target is later. Can you confirm? > > I am not sure what you mean by "earlier" target. > > Target, if present, always represents the current target. A receiving > entity that receives a request without a Target header has to assume > that the Request-URI represents the current target. When no Target > header is available on the request then the Target is inserted when a > reroute is performed. > > P-CPI is ONLY used to maintain the R-URI which is rewritten by the > contact of the UAS. I.e. by the home proxy which is usually at the end > of a chain of proxies. > > When both Target and P-CPI are used: Target always represents the > current target. P-CPI always represents the AOR received by the home > proxy which may in some cases be the same as the current target but it > may also be the last route (not equal to the current target) taken to > deliver the request. > >> Picking up on Francois' point about History-Info, with the >> introduction of Target and P-CPI we do indeed have a lot of >> URIs, and of course History-Info can already convey all these >> URIs and any others. The difference is that History-Info does >> not give particular semantics to each of the URIs it conveys >> - they are simply a succession of targets. > > Yes, we agree with your analysis regarding History-Info. The > UA-loose-draft discusses further issues with using History-Info. > >> With Target and P-CPI we are aiming to define specific >> semantics. I am concerned whether we will be able to define >> these semantics tightly enough to ensure consistent >> implementations. > > Target always represents the current target. See above. > > P-CPI does not represent the current target in all cases. See above. > >> The more URIs we try to define, the harder it will be to assign each > one a clearly distinguishable meaning. I hope the next draft will help. > > In the next version of the draft I will remove as much as possible about > P-CPI, in order not to cause confusion. I will only keep some text where > I describe the semantical difference between Target and P-CPI. > > I also do agree with one of your previous comments, that we should > clarify the meaning of all the URIs we're using - and that should be > done no matter if we adopt Target or not. > > Regards. > > Christer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com] >>> Sent: 15 January 2008 08:48 >>> To: Francois Audet >>> 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, >>> >>> P-CPI could probably be useful in some cases, in addition to Loose >>> Route/Target. And, as the draft says, P-CPI will still have >> to be used >>> in IMS, because there are procedures defined for it. >>> >>> However, again, the purpose of the draft was to provide an >> alternative >>> to the Loose Route alternative, and that alternative is Target only. >>> >>> I am working on an updated version of the draft to make that more >>> clear. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Christer >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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
- [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters to UA… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- VS: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters t… Christer Holmberg
- Re: VS: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and paramete… Jonathan Rosenberg
- VS: VS: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters t… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Paul Kyzivat
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Elwell, John
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Francois Audet
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Paul Kyzivat
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Francois Audet
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters to UA… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Francois Audet
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Elwell, John
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Elwell, John
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Paul Kyzivat
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Francois Audet
- Re: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Jeroen van Bemmel
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters to UA… Christer Holmberg
- [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters t… Elwell, John
- [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters t… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Elwell, John
- RE: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters t… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- RE: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters t… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Paul Kyzivat
- [Sip] SIP Routers kamalakar.mergu
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Elwell, John
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters t… youssef.chadli
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters t… Enrico Marocco
- Re: [Sip] SIP Routers James M. Polk
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Elwell, John
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Elwell, John
- [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Reques… Dean Willis
- Re: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Re… Dean Willis
- RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Re… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Re… Hadriel Kaplan
- RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Re… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Re… Dean Willis
- RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Re… Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh)
- RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Re… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Re… Dean Willis
- Re: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Re… Jeroen van Bemmel
- RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Re… Elwell, John
- Re: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Re… Paul Kyzivat
- RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Re… Hadriel Kaplan
- RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement forReq… Elwell, John
- RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement forReq… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement forReq… Paul Kyzivat
- RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement forReq… Elwell, John
- RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statementforRequ… Elwell, John
- Re: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement forReq… Paul Kyzivat
- RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statementforRequ… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Jonathan Rosenberg
- RE: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters t… youssef.chadli
- Re: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters t… Paul Kyzivat
- RE: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters t… youssef.chadli
- RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and paramete… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters t… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters t… Hans Erik van Elburg