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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

[as individual]

Mary Barnes wrote:

>>  Second, it accounts for SIP/SIPS but not TEL URIs.
> [MB]  The value for this URI parameter is determined by the same
> mechanisms by which the target parameter is determined by a proxy when
> accessing a location service database.  So, it's not clear to me why
> this URI parameter introduces a specific problem for tel-URIs.  [/MB]

TEL URIs can't have URI parameters in the way that SIP URIs can.

>> 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]

IMO its a red flag any time there is talk about a URI parameter that is 
only to be used when that URI is present in a particular header. That is 
a case that instead calls for a header parameter. Having it be a URI 
parameter then raises all sorts of questions about what should happen if 
that parameter appears in the URI in some other context.

(We've been seeing that problem a lot with TEL URI parameters.)

	Thanks,
	Paul