Re: [sipcore] draft-barnes-sipcore-rfc4244bis - hi-targeted-to-uri

"Mary Barnes" <mary.barnes@nortel.com> Fri, 10 July 2009 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.barnes@nortel.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C663A6E63 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aY+x0elJVA63 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com (zrtps0kp.nortel.com [47.140.192.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594993A6E5E for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.71]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id n6AGDCl10441; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:13:12 GMT
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:14:35 -0500
Message-ID: <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1EEDE21D@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <6CA0129806DD4shin@softfront.co.jp>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] draft-barnes-sipcore-rfc4244bis - hi-targeted-to-uri
thread-index: AcoBKYpcz2kxjeifS+K4RZGCZCI9LgATh7Fg
References: <6CA0129806DD4shin@softfront.co.jp>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.barnes@nortel.com>
To: OKUMURA Shinji <shin@softfront.co.jp>, sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] draft-barnes-sipcore-rfc4244bis - hi-targeted-to-uri
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:12:48 -0000

Hi Shinji,

I honestly can't remember if there was a specific reason why we used
just name-addr, other than it also encompasses the addr-spec so you get
consistency in the format for the field. I'd welcome other opinions on
this. 

Thanks,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of OKUMURA Shinji
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 1:42 AM
To: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: [sipcore] draft-barnes-sipcore-rfc4244bis - hi-targeted-to-uri

Hi,

I have one suggestion.

In the draft hi-targeted-to-uri is defined as follows

hi-targeted-to-uri = name-addr

If there is no special reason for the restriction, I think addr-spec
should be added as follows

hi-targeted-to-uri = name-addr/addr-spec

Regards,
Shinji
_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
sipcore@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore