Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-02
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 03 November 2010 10:41 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 8C1663A68A3 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 03:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 1yDsHkUMueXT for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 03:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993AF3A677D for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 03:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id oA3AeVii002632 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:41:43 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.44]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:41:42 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>, "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:41:41 +0100
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-02
Thread-Index: Act6w7C7xiBmxJg2SH+yiHKjhwzf7AAfNIuw
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE2198FEEE5@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA023554628B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <AANLkTi=B1qL2D-U85mMp3Dft2kvmuB9Sv5EAQ9vQBtot@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=B1qL2D-U85mMp3Dft2kvmuB9Sv5EAQ9vQBtot@mail.gmail.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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.83
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-02
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, 03 Nov 2010 10:41:44 -0000
> > 1. As a general comment that I have made before, the > document still talks about 'header' in many places where it > is not referring to the entire header for a SIP message, but > only to a particular header field such as History-Info. > History-Info is only one field within the entire SIP header. > See RFC 3261 section 6 - definitions of header and header > field. Although RFC 3261 is not 100% consistent, in general > things like Contact, To, From etc. are referred to as header > fields, and hence History-Info should be too. Section 4.3 of > RFC 4485 also calls for attention to be given to the correct > use of terms header, header field and header field parameter, > although it fails to say what the correct use is and one has > to rely on RFC 3261. > [MB] I replied to this in the other email. But, yes, this doc > does use Header to mean Header field, but that's done in many > other documents. > However, I can change all of those to say "header field" if > it makes a difference in understanding the document. [This > might be something to put on the RFC editor list if folks are > insisting that we always use "Header field"] The term header > field parameter AFAIK is only used to refer to the two new > header field parameters defined in this document. > [/MB]. If you look at the definitions in RFC 3261 you will find that "header" and "header field" are terms with two very different meanings, so I would support the change to "header field". > -----Original Message----- > From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 7:25 PM > To: Elwell, John > Cc: sipcore@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-02 > > Hi John, > > Responses inline below [MB]. I will skip the ones that I > replied to in the other response [MB]. > > Thanks, > Mary. > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Elwell, John > <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com> wrote: > > Despite the effort that has gone into addressing comments > raised by people on -01, I still find -02 hard to understand > in places. I have not had time to review the whole document, > but here are some comments up to section 7. Just as I > finished writing this I saw Mary's response to my comments on > -01, which I will respond to tomorrow. Apologies for any > overlap between the two. > > > > > > 1. As a general comment that I have made before, the > document still talks about 'header' in many places where it > is not referring to the entire header for a SIP message, but > only to a particular header field such as History-Info. > History-Info is only one field within the entire SIP header. > See RFC 3261 section 6 - definitions of header and header > field. Although RFC 3261 is not 100% consistent, in general > things like Contact, To, From etc. are referred to as header > fields, and hence History-Info should be too. Section 4.3 of > RFC 4485 also calls for attention to be given to the correct > use of terms header, header field and header field parameter, > although it fails to say what the correct use is and one has > to rely on RFC 3261. > [MB] I replied to this in the other email. But, yes, this doc > does use Header to mean Header field, but that's done in many > other documents. > However, I can change all of those to say "header field" if > it makes a difference in understanding the document. [This > might be something to put on the RFC editor list if folks are > insisting that we always use "Header field"] The term header > field parameter AFAIK is only used to refer to the two new > header field parameters defined in this document. > [/MB]. > > > > Also there are some instances of "header parameter field", > which is not a normal term - it should be "header field parameter". > [MB] That's a typo. [/MB] > > > > 2. There is some confusion concerning Reason - sometimes it > is referred to as a parameter (e.g., 7.1 3rd bullet, 7.1 last > paragraph), sometimes as reason header, sometimes as reason, > sometimes as Reason header, sometimes as Reason... > [MB] Logically, Reason is a "parameter" for the hi-entries. > However, rather than redefine the "parameter", we reuse the > Reason header by escaping it in the URI - the term Reason > header was used for brevity. > I did add text in the -02 to clarify that in cases where it > is confusing. I can change all instances to refer to "escape > a Reason header in the hi-targeted-uri" rather than just "add > a Reason header". > [/MB] > > > > 3. The word "entry" is used inconsistently. Mostly it > occurs in "hi-entry", which is fine. But we also have > "targeted-to-URI entry", "entry" (alone), History-Info entry > (which is probably fine, as long as we say what it is), > "header entry". Also "hi-entries". > [MB] Which term do you prefer? I will change all the > entry(s) to hi-entry. The targeted-to-URI entry possibly > should be hi-targeted-to-uri. [/MB] > > > > > 4. As another general comment, there are too many normative > statements using the passive voice, and therefore hard to > understand. To quote one example of the sort of ambiguity > that can arise from using passive, in 7.3.2: > > "For retargets that are the result of an explicit SIP response, a > > Reason MUST be associated with the hi-targeted-to-uri." > > Is this saying that an entity that inserts History-Info > MUST include in hi-targeted-uri an escaped Reason header > field? Or is this saying that a recipient of Reason MUST > associate it with an hi-targeted-to-uri. I guess the first > interpretation is more plausible, but why not say what is > meant, rather than fudging it? > [MB] The Reason header is added to the hi-entry whose > hi-targeted-to-URI is being retargeted due to the response. > It is added by the entity receiving the response. Note that > it is added to the entry prior to the entry that is being > added as a result of the retargeting due to the response - > i.e., it's not added to the "current" hi-entry. It's added > to the previous. The sentences following the one that you > highlight are intended to say just that. > That's why the term "associated" is loosely used because the > next sentences are the normative part. So, really, that first > sentence shouldn't be "MUST be" and would be more accurate to > say "is". [/MB] > > > > 5. Section 1: > > "there is a need for a standard mechanism within > > SIP for communicating the retargeting history of such a request" > > What is meant by "such a request"? We have not previously > mentioned "request". The preceding text has talked about > calls, not requests, but perhaps it should talk about requests. > [MB] I will change "such a request" to "call requests". [/MB] > > > > 6. Section 3: > > "Current network applications provide the ability for elements > > involved with the call to exchange additional > information relating > > to > > how and why the call was routed to a particular destination" > > Change "exchange" to "obtain". I think that would fit > better with the examples that follow. > [MB] Okay. [/MB] > > > > 7. Section 3: > > "Capturing aliases and Globally Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) > > [RFC5627], which can be overwritten by a home proxy > upon receipt" > > The term "home proxy" is not used in RFC 3261. > [MB] I will change to "proxy in the home domain" which is a > term used in RFC 5627 (earlier versions of GRUU did use the > term "home proxy")[/MB] > > > > 8. Section 4: > > "The following information is carried in the History-Info header as > > detailed in Section 7.1:" > > I think it would be better to say "For each target used for > forwarding a request, the following information is carried > in the History-Info header as detailed in Section 7.1:" > > This would make it clear that there can be more than one > instance of this information. > [MB] Okay. [/MB] > > > > 9. Section 4; > > "Target : A parameter indicating ..." > > This overloads the word target. Perhaps a better generic > term for these parameters would be "Derivation". > [MB] I will just change to "Indicates.." which matches the > form of the other bullets in that list. [/MB] > > > > 10. Section 4: > > "A SIP entity changing the target of a > > request in response to a redirect or REFER" > > A REFER does not cause an entity to change the target of a > request - it causes an entity to generate a new request. H-I > will indeed be added, but that is covered by the statement > above about creating a new request. > [MB] Yep. [/MB] > > > > 11. "propagates any > > History-Info header from the initial Request in the new request": > > Contrary to what it says in the first half of the sentence, > this does indeed acknowledge that we have a new request as a > result of REFER. However, the statement is incorrect because > there is no normative statement (e.g., in section 5) > concerning this special behaviour for REFER. There is merely > a requirement in Appendix A. > [MB] I'll add text. [/MB] > > > > 12. Section 4: > > "Note that an hi-entry is not included for the fork to > > sip:bob@192.0.2.7 " > > This is misleading, because there is indeed H-I sent to > 192.0.2.7. I think what it should say is that the H-I sent to > 192.0.2.3 and subsequently sent back to Alice does not > contain an entry for target 192.0.2.7. > [MB] yep. [/MB] > > > > 12bis. Section 5.1: > > "In addition, the UAC > > SHOULD add a History-Info header" > > Why is this only a SHOULD, not a MUST? What would be the exceptions? > [MB] This was issue #28 where Dale suggested it be change > from a "MAY" to a "SHOULD" (with which you agreed in the > email thread). But, I don't have a problem to change this to > a MUST. [/MB] > > > > 13. Section 5.1: > > "As a result, intermediaries and > > the UAS at least know the original Request-URI, and if > the Request- > > URI was modified by a previous hop. " > > This is inaccurate, since intermediaries may have removed > H-I for privacy or other reasons. Best to delete the sentence. > [MB] Okay. HOwever, entries should not be removed for privacy > - that was a change from RFC 4244 - they MUST be anonymized. [/MB] > > > > 14. Section 5.1: > > "A UAC that wants to ensure that privacy not > > be applied to its identity MUST include a Privacy header with a > > priv- > > value of "none"." > > I am not sure that 'none' ensures anything - it is only a > request according to RFC 3323. > [MB] Then I'll change it from "ensure" to "request". [/MB] > > > > 15. Section 5.1: > > "A new hi-entry MUST then be added for the URI from > > the Contact header (which becomes the new Request-URI) " > > The Contact header field could contain >1 URIs. I think > what we want to say is that the UAC MUST populate the > new-hi-entry with the URI chosen as the Request-URI for the > new request. > [MB] Yes. [/MB] > > > > 16. Section 5.1: > > "If the Contact header contained any of > > the header parameter fields defined in this specification" > > Don't understand. The parameters defined in this > specification are parameters of the History-Info header > field, so would not appear in a Contact header field. > Admittedly there is some mention in 7.3.4 of using the > parameters in a Contact header field, but there is nothing > that specifies the extended syntax of the Contact header field. > [MB] The header field parameters are defined for the Contact > header (and History-Info) in the IANA section. It is > introduced in 7.1 and the usage thereof described in 7.3.4. [/MB] > > > > 17. Section 5.1: > > "MUST include the header parameter field as a header > parameter field > > associated with the current hi-entry as described in > Section 7.3.4." > > Is "current hi-entry" the "new hi-entry" from a couple of > sentences earlier? > [MB] Yes. Do you have a terminology preference? [/MB] > > > > 18. Section 5.2.1: > > "The last hi-entry reflects the most recent > > target and MUST contain the Request-URI for the received request," > > If I interpret this correctly, this is talking about what > the UAS receives. What the UAS receives is outside the > control of the UAS, so we can't use RFC 2119 language. Should > be "will". > [MB] Yep. [/MB] > > > > 19. Section 5.2.1: > > "e.g., the last proxy does > > not support History-Info" > > In the previous sentence we used the term "previous > entity", so it would be better to stick to that term rather > than "last proxy". > [MB] Okay. [/MB] > > > > 20. Section 5.2.1: > > "hi-index attribute" > > and > > "hi-target attribute" > > Up till now we have called these parameters rather than attributes > [MB] I'll change to parameter [/MB]. > > > > 21. Section 5.2.1: > > "The > > addition of the missing hi-entry ensures that the most complete > > information can be provided in the response ..." > > Not sure that it is "most complete" - "more complete" would > be better, since there could still be some missing entries > from upstream. > [MB] Most complete as "possible" - but I can change to "more". [/MB] > > > > 22. Section 5.2.1: > > "Prior to any application usage of the information, the > validity MUST > > be ascertained" > > What MUST ascertain the validity - the UAS or the > application? Use active voice. How does it do this? Is this > testable? I don't believe we can use RFC2119 language here. > [MB] That is saying that the UAS MUST check that the entries > that it is aware of contain the information that might be > needed by an application (i.e., the last entry, target header > field parameters, etc.). It's testable from a software > implementation perspective - not a protocol perspective. I > can change the MUST to a lower case recommended .. ie., it is > recommended that the UAS...Note, that this was one of the > SHOULDS (from RFC 4244) that folks wanted to change to MUST. [/MB] > > > > 23. Section 5.2.2: > > "If the "histinfo" option tag is received in a request, the UAS MUST > > include any History-Info received in the request in the subsequent > > response" > > This is incorrect for a B2BUA - a B2BUA should be allowed > to use information received from its other interface. Also it > is not necessarily correct for a regular UAS, since I would > have thought a UAS should be required to include the hi-entry > inserted in accordance with 5.2.1, rather than using just the > H-I received. > [MB] We can reword something like the following to capture > your concern: > > If the "histinfo" option tag is received in a request, the UAS MUST > include any History-Info received in the request and any hi-entries > added by the UAS in the subsequent response. In addition, in > the case of a B2BUA, the UAS MAY include any hi-entries > received by the UAC in a response in the subsequent response > sent by the UAS. > > [/MB] > > > > > 24. Section 5.2.2: > > "The processing of History-Info in responses follows the methodology > > described in Section 16.7 of [RFC3261], " > > We can't refer to 16.7 of RFC 3261, because that is for > proxies, not UASs. > [MB] See reply in other email response [/MB] > > > > 25. Section 5.3: > > "the redirect server MUST add the appropriate target header > > field parameter to each Contact header as described in > Section 7.3.4." > > I don't think 7.3.4 tells me how to do this. Section 7.3.4 > does mention the Contact header field, but only in the > context of adding these parameters to the History-Info header > field (if I understand correctly). > [MB] 7.3.4 tells you which one to add based upon the > mechanism by which the targets are determined. The header > field parameter is added based upon the same criteria. [/MB] > > > > 26. Section 6: > > "A Reason MAY be associated with the hi-targeted-to-uri > that has been > > retargeted as shown in the example in Appendix B.1." > > It would be good to be more precise, since B.1 is long - > refer to A6, perhaps. > [MB] Okay. [/MB] > > > > 27. Section 6.1.1: > > "The proxy MUST include an hi-index attribute > > with a value of "1"" > > It says we are inserting an entry, not replacing any > existing entries. Value "1" will not apply if there is an > existing entry. > [MB] Correct. If the prior hop did not include an hi-entry, > then one is added. Even if there are already other > hi-entries, there is no way to know how many hops might have > been missed and thus, the indexing needs to be reset to 1 to > reflect such. [/MB] > > > > 28. Section 6.1.1: > > "The proxy MUST add a separate hi-entry in each > > separate outgoing request for each of the current (outgoing) > > targets in the target set." > > Ambiguous - there should be only one entry per request - > not one per target in each request. > > Perhaps it should say "For each outgoing request relating > to a target in the target set, the proxy MUST add a single > hi-entry identifying that target. For this new hi-entry, the > proxy MUST..." > [MB] Yes - your suggestion is more clear. [/MB] > > > > 29. Section 6.1.2: > > "When re-sending a request as " > > I don't think this is really resending - we are > retargeting, and therefore changing some aspects of the > original request. > [MB] I'll change to "sending the retargeted request" [/MB] > > > > 30. Section 6.1.2: > > "in the order indicated by the indexing (see > > Section 7.3.3)" > > We really need a more precise reference - where in 7.3.3 > does it tell me how to use the aggregated information? > [MB] 7.3.3. refers to RFC 3261 Step 7 > "Aggregate Authentication Header Field Values", which states: > "the proxy MUST collect any WWW- > Authenticate and Proxy-Authenticate header field values from > all other 401 (Unauthorized) and 407 (Proxy Authentication > Required) responses received so far in this response context > and add them to this response without modification before > forwarding. " > > It's actually easier to just reword that to match what is > done for History-Info header field something like the following: > The SIP entity MUST collect any History-Info header > field values from > all other responses received so far in this response context > and add them to this response without modification before > forwarding. > [/MB] > > > > > > 31. Section 6.1.2: > > "If the received error response did not include > > any History-Info header fields, the proxy MUST use the same > > History-Info header fields that were sent in the > outgoing request > > that failed to build the outgoing request." > > First, the two instances of "outgoing request" are > confusing - I think the second should be "new outgoing > request" or "retargeted request". > [MB] I'll change to "new outgoing request" since the other > request could also have been retargeted. > > Second, what if some responses include aggregated > information and others don't? > [MB] That shouldn't matter. The receiving entity will use > what it can. If the normative procedures are followed, it's > fairly deterministic as to when the aggregated information > should be used. > [/MB] > > > > 32. Section 6.1.2: > > "Same as per Step 2 above for the normal forwarding case > > Section 6.1.1." > > This is confusing, because 6.1.1 is not on "normal > forwarding case" but on "initial requests". > [MB] Section 6.1.2. use of "initial" is referring to both > the case of the "initial" hi-entry to be added (bullet 1) AND > the case whereby a Proxy received a request and it is adding > the "initial" hi-entry for the first ("initial") retargeting. > The "normal" forwarding is specifically bullet #3. I think > it would be clearer if we just removed the word "initial" > from the title and first paragraph and add an explicit > reference to bullet 3. [/MB] > > > > 33. Section 6.1.3: > > "When re-sending a request as " > > Again I don't think "re-sending" is the correct term. > [MB] I'll change to the "generating new requests" [/MB] > > > > 34. Section 6.1.3: > > " Step 1: Including Previous Entries > > The proxy MUST include the History-Info header fields that were > > sent in the outgoing request that is being redirected." > > This seems to be a significant difference from the > 4xx/5xx/6xx case. In that case we include any hi-entries from > downstream entities that have sent back the 4xx/5xx/6xx - why > not in the 3xx case too? > [MB] See response to issue 25 in your previous set of comments. [/MB] > > > > 35. Section 6.1.3: > > "add a Reason header this > > entry" > > Change "this" to "to this". > > > > 36. "MUST forward captured History-Info in subsequent, > > provisional, and final responses to the request sent by > the ultimate > > UAS (see Section 5.2)" > > If a response does not contain any captured H-I (because > the UAS doesn't support it), is there any requirement on the > proxy to generate it from its own information? > [MB] A proxy would have added an hi-entry for the UAS if it > follows the normative procedures in this document. But, there > is no way for the proxy to generate any additional hi-entries > (in cases where the > UAS internally retargets or B2BUA case). [/MB] > > > > 37. Section 7.1: > > "Reason: An optional parameter for History-Info," > > It is not in the ABNF as a parameter of History-Info - in > fact it is an escaped header field. > [MB] Correct - this is a summary of information associated with each > hi-entry and it is described in as being escaped. Logically, the > information is there. Certainly, it's clear that it's not > defined specifically in the ABNF for the header. [/MB] > > > > 38. Section 7.1: > > "he hi-target is added for a hi-entry when it is > > first added in a History-Info header field, and only > one value is > > permitted" > > I believe it should say "only one parameter is permitted". > True that parameter ('rc' or 'mp') can have only one value, > but I don't think that is the point we are trying to make. > [MB] Correct. [/MB] > > > > 39. Section 7.3.2: > > "If the response contains a Reason header for a protocol > > that is not SIP (e.g., Q.850), it MUST be captured as an > additional > > Reason associated with the hi-targeted-to-uri that has been > > retargeted, along with the SIP Response Code" > > I think this is saying that the entity MUST include two > Reason parameters in the hi-entry. Perhaps we should state > that more explicitly. Also, does order matter? > [MB] I can add (i.e., there will be two reason headers), but > I figured when you add "an additional" to one, that it's > obvious that there are two headers. Per RFC , order does not > matter. [/MB] > > > > 40. Section 7.3.3 item 6: > > "When a response is built and it represents the aggregate of > > responses to multiple forks " > > Suddenly we are talking about forks when previously we were > talking about branches. > [MB] A branch reflects a fork. I'll clarify the text in > item 6, such that it reads: > "the index MUST be captured > for each forked request, creating a new branch, per > the rules above..." > and change the use of forks to branch in the body of item 6. > [/MB] > > > > 41. Section 7.1.3, item 6: > > "For example, if > > a procesing entity received failure responses for forks 1.1.1 > > and > > 1.1.2, it would return both the 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 entries to the > > entity that generated the hi-entry with index of 1." > > I can't figure this out - shouldn't "index of 1" be "index of 1.1"? > [MB] No. The processing entity in that sentence has the index of 1.1. > The processing entity is the subject of that sentence and > "it" returns the response to the entity that would have added > the hi-entry with index of 1.[/MB] > > > > 42. Section 7.1.3, item 6: > > "See > > Appendix B.1 for an example" > > It is unclear where exactly in B.1 I am supposed to look - > searching for '1.1.1' or '1.1.2' produces no results. Please > cite the specific messages. > [MB] Okay. [/MB] > > > > Although I didn't review beyond section 7, I happened to > notice the following in Appendix B: > > "B. An entity (UA or proxy) retargeting in response to a redirect > > or REFER MUST include any Request History information from > > the redirect/REFER in the new request." > > It is unclear how you can retarget in response to a REFER. > A REFER requests leads to the generation of a new request - > there is no retargeting. > [MB] I'll reword that to reflect that the REFER includes the > History-Information from previous retargets. [/MB] > > > > John > > _______________________________________________ > > sipcore mailing list > > sipcore@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore > > > _______________________________________________ > sipcore mailing list > sipcore@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore >
- [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244b… Elwell, John
- Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4… Mary Barnes
- Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4… Elwell, John
- Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4… Mary Barnes
- Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4… Mary Barnes
- Re: [sipcore] Reason as a parameter rather than a… Elwell, John
- Re: [sipcore] Reason as a parameter rather than a… Shida Schubert
- Re: [sipcore] Reason as a parameter rather than a… R.Jesske
- Re: [sipcore] Reason as a parameter rather than a… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [sipcore] Reason as a parameter rather than a… R.Jesske
- Re: [sipcore] Reason as a parameter rather than a… marianne.mohali
- Re: [sipcore] Reason as a parameter rather than a… R.Jesske
- Re: [sipcore] Reason as a parameter rather than a… Shida Schubert
- Re: [sipcore] Reason as a parameter rather than a… Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4… Mary Barnes
- Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4… Elwell, John
- Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4… Mary Barnes