Re: [sipcore] Why doesn't 4244bis cover Marianne's use-case?

"Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <> Fri, 19 November 2010 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3073A684F for <>; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:45:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.469
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QtmBWnLwJ9SP for <>; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:45:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264DD3A67F2 for <>; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:45:38 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAHo45kyHCzI1/2dsb2JhbACiYXGkFQKZM4VLBIRaiSk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,224,1288584000"; d="scan'208";a="46340221"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2010 11:46:27 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,224,1288584000"; d="scan'208";a="541491481"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2010 11:45:57 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:45:56 -0500
From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <>, " WG" <>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:42:57 -0500
Thread-Topic: Why doesn't 4244bis cover Marianne's use-case?
Thread-Index: AcuCDjF+SApIdspJSNqP2SboPfuUGAF+qBD9
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Why doesn't 4244bis cover Marianne's use-case?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:45:39 -0000

From: [] On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan []

It was unfortunate that we ran out of time in sipcore to talk about Marianne's draft, because I think it's a kind of litmus test of rfc4244bis.  Or else I think I must be missing something very basic. (easily the case)

As others have said in other terms,  draft-mohali-diversion-history-info is orthogonal to 4244bis.  draft-mohali provides additional Reason values that provide more detailed information on why a call was routed as it was.  Those Reason values will be recorded in H-I according to 4244bis.  In a sense, draft-mohali *is* a litmus test of 4244bis, because without H-I, the value of the new Reason values would be dramatically reduced.  But since the two are orthogonal, draft-mohali needs to be specified, but it can be specified separately.