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

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

That's only because no one's submitted a tracker ticket to go use <favorite-term> where appropriate in the draft. :)

The draft needs a re-write to use the terms, so that it will be easier to read.  Even if it's not in section 6.3.1's specific normative statements (though it should be), using the terms elsewhere in non-normative will make it easier to grok I think.

But first we need to agree on the terms.  Just using the word "retarget" again and again doesn't help imo, when we really mean different, specific sub-types of retargeting in different cases. (for the cases that matter)

-hadriel

On Sep 2, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:

> In regard to "retarget", "forward", "rerouting", "contact routing",
> and even "diversion", we should note that defining them (in any
> manner) is not necessary for this work to progress.  If those terms
> were to have any ultimate relevance, they would appear in the text
> that specifies when "rc" and "mp" are to be use, which is:
> 
>   6.3.1
> 
>   o  "rc": The Request-URI is a contact that is bound to an AOR in an
>      abstract location service.  The AOR-to-contact binding has been
>      placed into the location service by a SIP Registrar that received
>      a SIP REGISTER request.
> 
>   o  "mp": The Request-URI is a URI that represents another user.  This
>      occurs when a request is to be statically or dynamically
>      retargeted to another user.
> 
> And we may disregard the second sentence of the second case, as it
> describes an example of the case; the specification is the first
> sentence.
> 
> Once that sentence is disregarded, it's clear that "retarget" et
> al. have no normative appearance in the document.
> 
> Dale