[sipcore] Summary: number of location headers

Adam Roach - SIPCORE Chair <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 09 November 2010 09:10 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 2A1D63A68D7 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 01:10:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 JSilWDKgX3qc for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 01:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046ED3A68AB for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 01:10:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-48c3.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-48c3.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.72.195]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA99ALVW083369 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 03:10:23 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4CD90FFC.40502@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:10:20 +0800
From: Adam Roach - SIPCORE Chair <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "SIPCORE (Session Initiation Protocol Core) WG" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 130.129.72.195 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [sipcore] Summary: number of location headers
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: SIPCORE Chairs <sipcore-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
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: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:10:04 -0000

[as chair]

I just wanted to summarize where it looks like the discussion ended up 
on whether we constrain the number of location header fields in a SIP 
message. From my review of the discussion, I believe that four people 
have weighed in on the topic to voice support for an arbitrary number of 
location headers (albeit with a implementation warning that doing so is 
not advisable):

Martin Thompson: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg03576.html
Richard Barnes: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg03580.html
Keith Drage: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg03600.html
Hannu Hietalahti: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg03619.html

And two people have agreed to go along with that direction, with 
expressed reservations:

Jon Peterson: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg03601.html
James Polk: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg03603.html

If any other working group participants have comments on this topic, 
they are encouraged to make them quickly. Lacking any further input, the 
authors will be instructed to revise the document to allow an arbitrary 
number of location header fields, with an accompanying warning that 
doing so is not recommended.

/a