Re: [SIP] Interworking Between SIP/SDP and H.323

[Kundan Singh <[e-mail]>]

> Hi Henning & Kundan,
>
> I have a query with regards to draft-singh-sip-h323-01.txt.
>
> The draft states that the destination information from the H.323 call be
> derived from the To URL in a new INVITE (see A.1.2). It seems that the
> request-URI is ignored entirely (despite the fact that some of the call

This is an error. The signaling gateway should use
the Request-URI instead of To: URL. This occurs at more than
one place in the draft.

We will correct this in the next version.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake.

Kundan

> flows are annotated with "INVITE sip:[e-mail]").
>
> I do not see how this will work when a SIP UA or proxy redirects (or proxies
> with updating the request) call to a H.323 device.
>
> For example:
>
> INVITE sip:[e-mail] SIP/2.0
> To: "Robert Fairlie-Cuninghame" <sip:[e-mail]>
>
> is sent to the proxy at nuera.com which responds with a SIP/2.0 302 Temp
> Moved
> Contact: <sip:[e-mail];maddr=h323-iwf.nuera.com>
>
> How will this work if the IWF ignores the Request-URI ?
>
> If the IWF instead uses the request URI in the H323 SETUP destinationInfo,
> is there anythign wrong with it using the display name from the To? Unless a
> 380 Alternate Service is issued then the display name should still be
> correct.
>
> On a related note in the base SIP spec, if a 380 Alternate Service is issued
> (which requires user interaction), the spec needs to be clarified whether
> the new call attempt will use a new call-leg with the To field changed
> apprpriately.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robert.
>


_______________________________________________
This list is for continuing development of the SIP protocol.
The sip-implementer's list is the place to discuss implementation,
and to receive advice on understanding existing sip.
To subscribe to it, send mail to [e-mail] with
"subscribe sip-implementors" in the body.