Re: [sipcore] #24: Redirect servers
"Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com> Wed, 01 September 2010 07:25 UTC
Return-Path: <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.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 66A1B3A68B3 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 00:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.718
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 FaKi3TkCRsQv for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 00:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms03.m0019.fra.mmp.de.bt.com (m0019.fra.mmp.de.bt.com [62.180.227.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251413A68DD for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 00:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx ([62.134.46.9] [62.134.46.9]) by ms03.m0020.fra.mmp.de.bt.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-1350752; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:26:09 +0200
Received: from MCHP063A.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.37.61]) by senmx11-mx (Server) with ESMTP id 454591EB82AB; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:26:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP058A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.55]) by MCHP063A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.61]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:26:09 +0200
From: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: sipcore issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>, "worley@alum.mit.edu" <worley@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:26:07 +0200
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] #24: Redirect servers
Thread-Index: ActJMzODH3Ad19fvSdKXM4hFnYrWawAc3r0Q
Message-ID: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA01C48DAF0D@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
References: <061.41eb00508f1b9eea46bd9fec9077b704@tools.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <061.41eb00508f1b9eea46bd9fec9077b704@tools.ietf.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] #24: Redirect servers
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, 01 Sep 2010 07:25:51 -0000
I agree with this. A redirect server could internally retarget from B to C and then redirect from C to D. Since we encourage proxies to generate hi-entries for their internal retargets, shouldn't we allow redirect servers to do the same? John > -----Original Message----- > From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of sipcore issue tracker > Sent: 31 August 2010 18:37 > To: worley@alum.mit.edu > Cc: sipcore@ietf.org > Subject: [sipcore] #24: Redirect servers > > #24: Redirect servers > ---------------------------------+---------------------------- > -------------- > Reporter: worley@... | Owner: > Type: defect | Status: new > Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 > Component: rfc4244bis | Version: > Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: > ---------------------------------+---------------------------- > -------------- > In section 4.3, I see: > > A redirect server MUST NOT add any new History-Info entries. > > How would we handle a situation where proxy A, thinking B is > a redirect > server, sends the request to B which is actually a proxy > that sends the > request to a redirect server C, which generates a 3xx > response, which B > passes back to A? From A's point of view, B looks like a > redirect server. > But the 3xx that A receives is ultimately generated by C, > and its History- > Info has one further entry beyond what proxy A would expect > to see in a > 3xx coming from from proxy B (which it believes to be a > redirect server). > So A would think that B is violating this rule. > > I think the solution to this situation is straightforward: > Remove the > above restriction. The 3xx may have further hi-entry's than A would > expect, but they will be labeled as children of the hi-entry > representing > the request from A to B, and so will not confuse any element that is > interpreting the History-Info. > > -- > Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/trac/ticket/24> > sipcore <http://tools.ietf.org/sipcore/> > > _______________________________________________ > sipcore mailing list > sipcore@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore >
- [sipcore] #24: Redirect servers sipcore issue tracker
- Re: [sipcore] #24: Redirect servers Elwell, John
- Re: [sipcore] #24: Redirect servers Mary Barnes