Re: [sipcore] #4: The new "hit" parameter is gonna cause problems

I agree with Hadriel's proposal.

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> Sent: 30 August 2010 21:49
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
> Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] #4: The new "hit" parameter is gonna 
> cause problems
> 
> 
> On Aug 30, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> > Third, it should be a
> >> >  header param not a URI param, I think (which would 
> solve the previous
> >> >  issues).
> >> 
> >> [MB] It's not at all clear to me why you think this needs to be a
> >> header parameter or how such would solve the problems you 
> anticipate
> >> (although that's because I don't understand what problems you think
> >> will happen with the current approach).[/MB]
> >> 
> > If it's a header param, then it's not part of the URI in 
> the contact that becomes the request-uri of the recursed/new 
> request, does not matter if it's SIP or TEL, and is ignored 
> if not understood.
> 
> And once we agree on it being a header param, the next thing 
> I'll ask for is to not make it a "hit=" but rather just the 
> two params "rc" and "mp".  Then all the proxy needs to do is 
> copy the contact-URI to H-I, as it would have done with a 
> request-URI.  It doesn't have to look for the "hit" param and 
> convert its value to a new param name.  Seems simpler to me.
> 
> -hadriel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 