Re: [sipcore] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis

Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com> Fri, 24 June 2011 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <shida@ntt-at.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B840F11E80CB for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 05:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5EzzVef+Lge9 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 05:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gator465.hostgator.com (gator465.hostgator.com [69.56.174.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E39011E80BB for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 05:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from flh1agj244.tky.mesh.ad.jp ([125.192.75.244]:49761 helo=[192.168.11.3]) by gator465.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <shida@ntt-at.com>) id 1Qa5KQ-00015b-Mh; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:17:43 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>
In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585194E3E71BA@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:17:42 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7EC88632-C52C-4517-BFBD-271880636396@ntt-at.com>
References: <4DEC205A.5040503@cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585194E36022D@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <2FDD10D8-6DF3-4D77-B300-C05C2AB5D3A2@agnada.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585194E3E71BA@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator465.hostgator.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ntt-at.com
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: flh1agj244.tky.mesh.ad.jp ([192.168.11.3]) [125.192.75.244]:49761
X-Source-Auth: shida@agnada.com
X-Email-Count: 30
X-Source-Cap: c3NoaWRhO3NzaGlkYTtnYXRvcjQ2NS5ob3N0Z2F0b3IuY29t
Cc: "draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis@tools.ietf.org>, "SIPCORE \(Session Initiation Protocol Core\) WG" <sipcore@ietf.org>, SIPCORE Chairs <sipcore-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Robert Sparks <RjS@nostrum.com>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 24 Jun 2011 12:40:12 -0000

Hi Christer;

 Comments inline.
 
On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:

> 
> Hi Shida, 
> 		 
>>> 1. Usage of "rc" and "mp" in Contact header field (technical)
>>> 		 
>>> The document defines the "rc" and "mp" parameters also for the Contact header field. However, it is unclear when and how the parameters would be used in a Contact header field.
>>> 
>> 
>> 	 I think this is already described in the section 10.4. 
>> 
>> 	 "In the latter case, the specific header parameter field in the Contact
>> 	   header becomes the header field parameter that is used in the hi-
>> 	   target-param in the hi-entry when the request is retargeted."
> 
> The text says what you use it for, but not how it was inserted in the Contact in the first place.

 Okay, I see your point. We will need to add a text with regards to this in the 
section describing the behavior of the redirection server. 

> 
> ----------
> 
>>> 2. Tel to Sip transformation: ENUM (technical)
>>> 		 
>>> Section 5 talks about transformation from Tel to Sip, according section 19.6.1 of RFC 3261. However, the transformation can also be the result of an ENUM DNS lookup. So, maybe some text should 
>>> be added, indicating that the transformation can be done based on local configuration (the hostpart of the new SIP-URI needs to be taken from somewhere), or based on an ENUM DNS lookup.
>> 
>> Are you talking about adding target-param based on ENUM lookup or simply recording the transformation/resolution in H-I? 
> 
> Both.
> 
>> Anyway, do you want to suggest some text as a co-author of the draft? :-)
> 
> Sure :) 
> 
> But, it is a little unclear to me what target-param (if any), I would include, so I would like that to get soreted out first.

 I think the suggestion on the ML is to include the "mp" as far as I can tell. 

 I guess if the system doing the translation is certain that the target of 
tel URI and that of SIP URI is the same user then it can add "rc" according 
to the new semantics suggested by Hadriel. 

> 
> ----------
> 		  
>>> 3. Tel to Sip transformation: History-Info (technical)
>>> 		 
>>> Related to the previous question, the text doesn't indicate whether the transformation from Tel to Sip should be recorded in an History-Info header field. The Request-URI is, after all, 
>>> changed.
>> 		 
>> 
>> I don't know if we need to add anything specific for this. The draft doesn't limit the 
>> behavior of the entity recording H-I to only record SIP-URI, it just says to record the 
>> R-URI. 
> 
> Based on the comments I get, the text seems to indicate that you shouldn't insert a Tel in a History-Info in the first place. Instead you should transform it to a SIP-URI before inserting it.
> 
> But, I can think of some text for that also, because it's related to the previous comments.
> 
> ----------
> 
>>> 4. Home proxy (editorial)
>>> 		 
>>> The draft mentions "home proxy", but there is no reference or definition for it. I guess it should be "registrar", or something.
>> 
>> I guess we can call it a "registrar" or at the first instance include a text used in 
>> RFC 3327. 
>> 
>> 	 REGISTRAR or a "home proxy" (a proxy serving as the terminal point for routing an address-of-record)
> 
> I think it occurs only once, but as long as there is a definition (or a reference to a definition) I don't mind if it's used.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
> 
> 		 
> 		 
> 
>