IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Sipping] Re: draft-elwell-sipping-service-retargeting-00.txt

"Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <mhammer@cisco.com> Fri, 14 October 2005 22:43 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EQYGn-00056J-QD; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:43:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EQYGm-00056B-Hg for sipping@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:43:20 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01233 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:43:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EQYRa-0000mo-II for sipping@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:54:30 -0400
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2005 15:43:10 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,215,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="220332214:sNHT25449052"
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j9EMh6ub026799; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:43:06 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Re: draft-elwell-sipping-service-retargeting-00.txt
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:43:05 -0400
Message-ID: <072C5B76F7CEAB488172C6F64B30B5E3A8CCDC@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Sipping] Re: draft-elwell-sipping-service-retargeting-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcXPYWRThUECP68eTjeRP0yMMhcrMwAq/4wAAAeheOAADTAysAAZw0ygABDKgUAAAPHJsA==
From: "Michael Hammer (mhammer)" <mhammer@cisco.com>
To: Francois Audet <audet@nortel.com>, sipping <sipping@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2005 22:43:06.0168 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4A1DB80:01C5D110]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens.com>
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org

An additional point below. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@nortel.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 6:22 PM
> To: Michael Hammer (mhammer); sipping
> Cc: Elwell, John
> Subject: RE: [Sipping] Re: 
> draft-elwell-sipping-service-retargeting-00.txt
> 
> Below...
> 
> > Are you saying that if History-Info is used and these headers are 
> > included in the Request URI, that the value contained in the 
> > "old-target=" parameter will not appear in the History-Info header? 
> > Does it require one more hop before this information is moved from 
> > R-URI to History-Info?  Perhaps I misunderstood the timing of the 
> > insertions.
> 
> No: if service retargeting is used, and History-Info is used, 
> the History-Info will record the service retarget as well.
> 
> That being said:
> 
> - They will not necessarily match. Most "retargets" in SIP
>   are 302 ("Moved"). It says nothing about the reason (Busy,
>   Always, etc.). 

I think it is possible to receive a 302 with Reason header saying 486.
Is it ambiguous as to whether 302, 486, or both should be indicated in
the H-I header?  

Is it clear in retargeting which would be used?

I would have thought that the VM service would be most concerned with
the last line of H-I only, since that would be the one that would be
equivalent to what is put in R-URI.  If the 302 v 486 business is
settled, then perhaps it would be the last non-3xx header that is of
interest.

Hopefully, no SBC will muck with either R-URI params or the H-I header.

Mike

[snip]

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status