Re: [sipcore] #2: Editorial: section 2 is really confusing

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

The intent is that the tags (or lack thereof) are what adds the
clarification.  There's only so much we can do to not avoid conflict
with other terms.  IF we were rewriting RFC 3261, then certainly, we
could resolve this issue.  My suggestion is that we clean up all the
other issues, etc. that folks have highlighted and then we'll see
where we are. It might become more obvious (to me at least) how best
to use the terms as I'm in the middle of the edits.

Mary.

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> ________________________________________
> From: Mary Barnes [[e-mail]]
>
> I'm of the
> mindset right now that we should resolve all the other editorial
> issues and see if being more precise with the current definitions
> doesn't help and just live with the ambiguity as we've lived with it
> for other terms.  The important aspect is what happens with the
> protocol and I think it's more important to get the normative text
> correct.
> ______________________________________________
>
> It seems to me that the definitions of "retargeting", "redirecting", etc. (with the possible exception of "diversion") are not clear and have never been clear.  Up until 4244bis, this hasn't mattered.  But in 4244bis these allegedly distinct operations cause different things to go on the wire, so we have to make the definitions unambiguous.
>
> Dale
>