IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] Open issues in draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-09

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 19 June 2013 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 A28A521F9DAD for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lMMPu1WCyGFk for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f48.google.com (mail-qe0-f48.google.com [209.85.128.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D42B21F9DAC for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 2so3534958qea.21 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=WBlzkZ0ntohBw0taIhNkHEgS1y+dfOSWr6ETbevydM4=; b=lHwkZhTq23bFz8JpEiFQpwvneq2O4U79QI9tRMA7MCt/pg8tDo6o1gOSNk5SzLRgIY wF0swjO0EwteifMzhmtapNYk/cbZNL7kSR19jiVvedXREoIjujs0rvzpfGF8zkpHKIfh qGx973KW5gcHJlmildhTU50HaYe7DXRD5IYvMIbyjsB+ttICMVxfjai2MffHgWPV5lEo HwuLEAexVQeyA6n+EyOUxmnVrAzrLSWHdWV+dmb15k/Lxm10Rv/FYN/UHnFv7tQsdKLT baIh4SIGYXqcKYbJk6vU7l63l5UsroNCfVCZzSkIo6YmoleQWEMHkgKYyUvRNjVzfaJP IiWg==
X-Received: by 10.49.35.233 with SMTP id l9mr6158690qej.23.1371679526530; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.67.65 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <019a01ce6d24$8ee95670$acbc0350$@co.in>
References: <CALiegfmtohM8Nnf34o2EqMr-jV-LaQBP7mOB5qq+7OcQO9FkSA@mail.gmail.com> <003f01ce6aaf$aabda760$0038f620$@co.in> <CALiegfn=KrEsOT+HGkCpfkS3C7Tc0Jko6kautCHk3sP8zHrzVw@mail.gmail.com> <011e01ce6c44$3c70e290$b552a7b0$@co.in> <CALiegfnPeFf751QHLoeT_jO0u1LROtvkqseE7QcAZvLgSiqVZQ@mail.gmail.com> <E54AEADE791D51469F45E7FBB964391505C964@SGSIMBX001.nsn-intra.net> <019a01ce6d24$8ee95670$acbc0350$@co.in>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:05:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfkFVJgNNLJat+3v4JqXz_=OwLPTDtR6J55dRLmiH8OgFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQltX9Ip6DMVqMp7EVUktRY89dRasqy13ydQuElwoihgsWGUfk2yacybzpcTCRgFufUjtma6
Cc: "Avasarala, Ranjit (NSN - IN/Bangalore)" <ranjit.avasarala@nsn.com>, "SIPCORE (Session Initiation Protocol Core) WG" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Open issues in draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-09
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:05:32 -0000

2013/6/19 Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>:
>
> Just adding to Ranjit mentioned. The text similar to the following has to be added. "Record-route header MUST be added by SIP WebSocket Server in case WebSocket is the only supported SIP transport between SIP WebSocket client & server and SIP WebSocket server acts as SIP proxy"

That is just true in case the client is a web browser (a SIP WS Client
but not a SIP WS Server so it can not receive incoming WS
connections). So the text would be:

"Record-route header MUST be added by SIP WebSocket Server in case
WebSocket is the only supported SIP transport between client and
server, the server acts as SIP proxy, and the client is a SIP
WebSocket Client (but not a SIP WebSocket Server so it can not accept
incoming WebSocket connections)."

Does it sound ok?

If the WG agrees with this I will add such an statement in the draft.
BTW, in which section?


--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email