IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] #12: Section 7 on Application Considerations needs work

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Mon, 30 August 2010 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.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 498B73A6897 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.139, 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 GrnYH7BY0ekn for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E703A68B1 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so2675254gwb.31 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dN5yCIoDe6xJW95Upscs1CRSs5fa32aywHl9Mj5sSMw=; b=JGBuEdLOUJ4ONKY0nXBzAFq4SHQTlot/ldpPJWsHrr6ZiaaQtVnLqZ2Hux4uXUgvZq OUDO3Q/IMAa6h5LZuuUOI4Gee1QEoO1HIxatVNGUuyADo0IBdJpRZ1N0/3L54uNtAm28 ufUZIX5k8RPh6cs2bFJV39pGT9BNRA8UqBPjs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=VRTAbwaN99O5vhZjLUT/LnmMs1Pms+OesNh29Rp1UJF5/BC1DqdW0YqKLgYiaWJYAl pXHWHgHfiAg0FovtZ6Nw7xVtx6RhcY9oinwMQ4ae7nGtnlBahR9wajD+mEwlH/ldchi/ nTz/gCbZbi/CM1JUHK+/IAYyUwMol2dGJkfYs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.11.1 with SMTP id 1mr5379541ank.93.1283206786409; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.169.14 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <064.89665f0da52766f4162641242eae3a7e@tools.ietf.org>
References: <064.89665f0da52766f4162641242eae3a7e@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:19:46 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinr3jyTcFfC2v9fG7R4RNmv4Qdw_LnfC3qzGkkA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: sipcore issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] #12: Section 7 on Application Considerations needs work
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: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:19:17 -0000

Agreed. I'll add something like the text you suggested.

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:02 PM, sipcore issue tracker
<trac@tools.ietf.org> wrote:
> #12: Section 7 on Application Considerations needs work
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  hkaplan@…               |       Owner:
>     Type:  enhancement             |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  major                   |   Milestone:  milestone1
> Component:  rfc4244bis              |     Version:  2.0
>  Severity:  In WG Last Call         |    Keywords:
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>  The thing I fear the most about H-I is that different UAS will process
>  this thing and expect to see things a certain way, and applications will
>  fail when they don't, and SBC vendors will once again be fixing the
>  headers to make interop work.
>
>  In that sense, I think Section 7 may be the most important section to get
>  right.  In particular, items 2, 4 and 5 in this section are not
>  necessarily true.  I will submit separate tickets on them.
>
>  This ticket is for asking for additional text such as:
>  "Implementers should make certain their applications do not expect
>  specific H-I entries or index values to contain the information they need,
>  because SIP requests may follow numerous paths with multiple request-URI
>  rewriting cases in different deployments.  For example, there may be
>  multiple "rc" entries due to forking, or multiple entries which are
>  neither "rc" nor "mp" entries due to normal routing, or multiple "mp"
>  entries due to multiple diverts.  H-I entries can be non-SIP URIs, such as
>  TEL URIs.  Furthermore, H-I entry URIs may contain both URI parameters and
>  URI user parameters which are unknown to the final UAS, which MUST be
>  ignored for the purposes of identity matching."
>
> --
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/trac/ticket/12>
> sipcore <http://tools.ietf.org/sipcore/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email