IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] Open issues in draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-09

Michael Procter <michael@voip.co.uk> Thu, 27 June 2013 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <michael@voip.co.uk>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49BFD21F91C4 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KX7W3viMksZ9 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog124.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog124.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E1CC521F9CFF for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob124.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUcxbHRuPxYnAmNI/5sIBuQGW8MfRaVp5@postini.com; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:33:14 PDT
Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ey16so3240800wid.9 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Fm0WETizzD/6QcODYxwB/5umxMokddun+sJyQ30P1hg=; b=X5gZhQWKp5WdbanONwELtRw1JaXo9g7y2KB1jH+PPAIrL5DOI5XvVlbkUc4P57aHwp mcvMG1AJB4jWx9v5GZrxZ+bt1IpZBgf0wPeHNlbuIMVZ3S81JV7LhwYf8HugUoeT8Swc PtbOHCyfg0sUlI7JxCEpUvnV7YXhHLZQ764aSM6GDqXoAnnr0kIHYLI5G3rtkGK4RZcM wXALKVMutnzkMHNdLjx6vZQZ3SVOH0WixioKmgj1WPmssjl/4a61Xe8rUXtyVn71oE52 n1pqhfthUjEir8mcvSuxPZnlJGuDLzfQ2vEGVypcPYmCphJyp5PTR/eja2Ss41K/pi9b 29rQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.184.12 with SMTP id eq12mr6323989wic.8.1372347163994; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.184.12 with SMTP id eq12mr6323927wic.8.1372347162759; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.164.234 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51CC52F0.3050809@alum.mit.edu>
References: <CALiegfmtohM8Nnf34o2EqMr-jV-LaQBP7mOB5qq+7OcQO9FkSA@mail.gmail.com> <003f01ce6aaf$aabda760$0038f620$@co.in> <CALiegfn=KrEsOT+HGkCpfkS3C7Tc0Jko6kautCHk3sP8zHrzVw@mail.gmail.com> <011e01ce6c44$3c70e290$b552a7b0$@co.in> <CALiegfnPeFf751QHLoeT_jO0u1LROtvkqseE7QcAZvLgSiqVZQ@mail.gmail.com> <E54AEADE791D51469F45E7FBB964391505C964@SGSIMBX001.nsn-intra.net> <019a01ce6d24$8ee95670$acbc0350$@co.in> <CALiegfkFVJgNNLJat+3v4JqXz_=OwLPTDtR6J55dRLmiH8OgFg@mail.gmail.com> <51C3267F.8040709@alum.mit.edu> <002301ce713c$c2672880$47357980$@co.in> <51CB0532.3020107@alum.mit.edu> <CAPms+wSKhMf9XEnNJpSnQ+w-pbTPE7oQtkESrUpvrcvHTZ_OOw@mail.gmail.com> <51CC52F0.3050809@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:32:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPms+wR9M6Jy9=e+9RABwiO-ZiYa4HzRdS62fxDMXmY0p1gQyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Procter <michael@voip.co.uk>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTUN+OfJcFilnIpepk/tLHacX/z+pKr71VKdFnM0Kw+4axD8IaCdyxw+SYBFN9CS7x/Xqz1uq81a3t0ggTJnAs3ey6vY16dYZ7fY3eUZ/CpNHYobfUB8hPPuHoACV4mNQVcyV7ucwhgiHu6bKYVQ+ZXQJrnQ==
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Open issues in draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-09
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:34:50 -0000

On 27 June 2013 15:57, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> You miss my point. The cases you describe above are cases where it never
> makes sense to R-R. The only place the question is relevant is on dialog
> establishing requests.

Apologies.  Partha seemed to be edging towards a more general
statement than simply for dialog establishing requests and your
question was similarly unrestricted.

> One thing that comes to mind for me is that the UAC could decide whether or
> not to tag its contact URI with ";gr". If it were so tagged, then that says
> it is globally routable, so it would be safe for the proxy to bypass the
> R-R.

That sounds like a step forward.  I think this problem, specifically
for the non-browser scenario, has overlaps with the scenario RFC5923
addresses.  Maybe the 'alias' via parameter would also be a clue that
R-R is not necessarily required.

Regards,

Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email