> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shail Bhatnagar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 2:04 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Record-Route header (post bis-03)
>
>
> How is overriding the maddr and port components
> of the incoming request-uri (and not putting
> any transport parameter) different from the scheme
> outlined in bis-03.
bis-03 allows more flexibility, by defining requirements for
implementations, rather than mandating an approach. The approach you
describe above meets all of the MUST requirements (which is good, since we
need backwards compatibility), but misses one of the SHOULD requirements,
which is that the URI is meaningful to route to the entity at the other side
of the call leg. The approach above meets the requirement for a UAC, but not
a UAS. Thats why an approach of putting a different URI in the request and
response is outlined.
> Seems like bis-03 compliant Record-Route
> would be different in both directions, though it
> will resolve to one of the proxy interfaces and port.
Yup. It makes sure that the routing isn't brittle; i.e., doesn't depend on
each and every proxy absolutely obeying the route. Otherwise, you get a loop
if the UAS sends a re-INVITE or something.
> Secondly, I am not sure I understand all the
> advantages of the new approach.
> I would appreciate some comments.
They have been discussed extensively on the list; everything in the draft is
teh resulf ot list discussion.
-Jonathan R.
---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist First Floor
dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
