[sipcore] #41: Why does only "mp" have a value?
"sipcore issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Tue, 31 August 2010 18:27 UTC
Return-Path: <trac@tools.ietf.org>
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 59AF53A6A4A for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 c5gw1ULqahNq for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C9B93A6A65 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1OqVYu-0005qN-D8; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:28:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: sipcore issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.7
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.7, by Edgewall Software
To: worley@alum.mit.edu
X-Trac-Project: sipcore
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:28:00 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/sipcore/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/trac/ticket/41
Message-ID: <061.2e221aa118698f4371250faae119a59b@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 41
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: worley@alum.mit.edu, sipcore@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: [sipcore] #41: Why does only "mp" have a value?
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:27:30 -0000
#41: Why does only "mp" have a value?
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Reporter: worley@… | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: critical | Milestone: milestone1
Component: rfc4244bis | Version:
Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords:
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
There seems to be no reason to restrict the "mp-value", the information
regarding the predecessor request-URI to a newer request-URI, to only "mp"
mappings. In particular, if a redirect server implements an "rc" mapping,
it could be difficult for the UAS to determine why it received the
request:
{{{
Alice atlanta.example.com biloxi.example.com Carol
| | | |
| INVITE sip:bob@example.com | |
|--------------->| | |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1 |
| | | |
| | INVITE sip:bob@example.com |
| |--------------->| |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1 |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1.1 |
| | | |
| | 300 | |
| | Contact: <sip:carol@example.com>;mp
| History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1 |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1.1 |
| |<---------------| |
| | | |
| | INVITE sip:carol@example.com
| |--------------->| |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1 |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1.1 |
| History-Info: <sip:carol@example.com>;index=1.2;mp=1.1
| | | |
| | 300 | |
| | Contact: <sip:carol@192.0.2.3>;rc
| History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1 |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1.1 |
| History-Info: <sip:carol@example.com>;index=1.2;mp=1.1
| |<---------------| |
| | | |
| | INVITE sip:carol@192.0.2.3 |
| |-------------------------------->|
| History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1 |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1.1 |
| History-Info: <sip:carol@example.com>;index=1.2;mp=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:carol@192.0.2.3>;index=1.3;rc |
| | | |
}}}
(In this case, Carol might know to look for sip:carol@example.com and
trace its origin, but if we add a further retargeting and registration
lookup cycle for a different user in the middle, we can defeat that
strategy.)
It would seem useful to allow the "rc" parameter to have a value as well.
And given that some 3xx Contacts will have neither "mp" or "rc", but the
"origin" value would still be useful for a UAS to see, it seems desirable
to split off the "origin" value to another parameter which would be
applied regardless of whether "mp" or "rc" applies.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/trac/ticket/41>
sipcore <http://tools.ietf.org/sipcore/>
- [sipcore] #41: Why does only "mp" have a value? sipcore issue tracker
- Re: [sipcore] #41: Why does only "mp" have a valu… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [sipcore] #41: Why does only "mp" have a valu… Mary Barnes