IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Tue, 18 June 2013 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
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 E1CD721F9AE8 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.189
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.224, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 KRM4YN6YYx7x for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us1.mailhostbox.com [69.93.141.228]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E1521F9AE2 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.179.88.201]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9D7C1190830D; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:52:36 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1371574359; bh=8aXcOIl1Yxzcm0MlLTKUYLEUqkF98XazGJVBHi0uEW0=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=hjBAgeCwkt2x2bxyjUd4SdVPJKV0u3N9YvSs7QD7UHi4m81SHoSaUOXtAR6I06VzB lybzt2GFjqhULDHP5cQaeowlgp090Xitg3kylFE71lR4nXsOofrKt++sewUlsAirzg nLJnIi/1FfUomlzoxoyXj0nS7dTOrPX8WLFiKg9M=
From: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: 'Iñaki Baz Castillo' <ibc@aliax.net>
References: <CALiegfmtohM8Nnf34o2EqMr-jV-LaQBP7mOB5qq+7OcQO9FkSA@mail.gmail.com> <003f01ce6aaf$aabda760$0038f620$@co.in> <CALiegfn=KrEsOT+HGkCpfkS3C7Tc0Jko6kautCHk3sP8zHrzVw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfn=KrEsOT+HGkCpfkS3C7Tc0Jko6kautCHk3sP8zHrzVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:22:32 +0530
Message-ID: <011e01ce6c44$3c70e290$b552a7b0$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: Ac5ri7mr0UDPHWK3QWqBvSgq1Y/PpQAt2lrQ
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0C0201.51C09056.01A7, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Rules:
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 70.87.28.138
Cc: "'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: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:52:48 -0000

Hi Inaki,

I agree with you that RFC 4168 (SIP SCTP) does not explain the contact header usage. But it does not meant that it is the best practice. My comments is based on the later RFC namely RFC 5630 (The Use of the SIPS URI Scheme in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)) and look into the draft for the explanation and Normative statements around contact header w.r.t SIPS URI. 

The current text in the draft is clear to explain the usage of contact header. It will confuse in case anybody implement by just looking into this draft. I think that it is required for SIP over WebSocket to explain the usage of contact header field with example and normative statement. 

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:21 AM
> To: Parthasarathi R
> Cc: SIPCORE (Session Initiation Protocol Core) WG
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Open issues in draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-
> 09
> 
> 2013/6/16 Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>:
> > I could not understand how this update resolve the issue in the
> following scenario:
> >
> >  SIP UA1 (WS only)----Proxy-----SIP UA2 (UDP/TCP)
> >
> > Here, the dialog is established with contact details for SIP UA1 &
> SIP UA2 as follows:
> >
> > 1) contact: sip:sipua1@example.com;transport=ws
> > 2) contact: sip:sipua2@example.com;transport=tcp
> >
> > In case SIP UA2 wishes to send RE-INVITE towards SIP UA1, how does it
> possible now as per the current update in Sec 5.2.4 of draft-ietf-
> sipcore-sip-websocket-09.
> 
> 
> Hi Parthasarathi,
> 
>   SIP UA1 (SCTP/UDP/TCP)----Proxy-----SIP UA2 (UDP/TCP)
> 
> Here, the dialog is established with contact details for SIP UA1 & SIP
> UA2 as follows:
> 
> 1) contact: sip:sipua1@example.com;transport=sctp
> 2) contact: sip:sipua2@example.com;transport=tcp
> 
> In case SIP UA2 wishes to send RE-INVITE towards SIP UA1, please let
> me know in which section of RFC 4168 (SIP STCP) it is stated that the
> proxy must use Record-Route for the initial INVITE for this scenario
> to work.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> 
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email