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

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 01 September 2010 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 AAE4A3A6951 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.043
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.043 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.206, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 1aQXxpV+SlzW for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2053A6948 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id o81E1XkV026916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 1 Sep 2010 16:01:34 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.45]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 16:01:34 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:01:32 +0200
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] #2: Editorial: section 2 is really confusing
Thread-Index: ActIbNkTQNLW/wwQTzu3KR+4Ss11TQAtRf+YAC1ZDkA=
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE214D298AE@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <294E3E61-2DFE-4427-92F0-EDBDBE2888CC@acmepacket.com> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B21FFC79BFD@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B21FFC79BFD@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.80
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] #2: Editorial: section 2 is really confusing
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:01:12 -0000

I prefer not to use the term "diversion" because there is a well defined set of ISDN diversion services, and while the use of History-Info does encompass equivalents of such services, it encompasses much more. 

Changing the target to a new Request-URI may encompass diversion (in the ISDN sense), but it could also encompass a number of other cases, including freephone and number portability.

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Worley, Dale R (Dale)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:34 PM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan; Mary Barnes
> Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] #2: Editorial: section 2 is really confusing
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan [HKaplan@acmepacket.com]
> 
> Do you not want to use the term "Divert" because of the 
> Diversion header?
> 
> I think it's the only term left that isn't ambiguous... 
> "retarget" is being used for any/all cases of changing the 
> request-uri, and "forward" is used for generic message 
> routing procedures, and "redirect" is used for 3xx cases.  So 
> there isn't a term left I can think of that means "changing 
> the target to a new user/identity" (i.e., "call forwarding" 
> in the PSTN).
> 
> And really the draft would be clearer if there was a unique 
> term for that, because a lot of use-cses depend on it: 
> finding the previous or current diverted-to party.
> ______________________________________________
> 
> People use these various terms freely, but in reality, none 
> of them are well-defined and people don't use the same 
> definition for each term.  The current doc carries forward 
> this confusion by deferring the meanings to previous 
> documents.  The only useful way to deal with the situation is 
> to define the terms we want to use ab initio in this document.
> 
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>