Hi Venkat,
My question is how does the proxy recognize if
the PPI is a valid identity for the user ? From the
example, it seems like
P-Preferred-Identity: "Cullen Jennings" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
results in the proxy inserting:
P-Asserted-Identity: "Cullen Jennings" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In this case, how did the proxy decide that the PPI was a valid
or invalid identity ? Ideally it should have inserted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but it seems to have inserted [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is it correct
to assume that it did a _full_URL_comparision_; did not find a match;
and hence inserted the closest identity it could find to the one
suggested in the PPI ? Again, in deciding "closest identity" what
was the criteria - the PPI header does not allow the client to
suggest which part of the header is to be used as the hint (display-name
or userinfo part or whatever)...is that left open to implementations ?
Thanks,
Subhash.
"Goud, Venkat
Ramana (Venkat)
** CTR **" To
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
05/13/04 06:28 PM cc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject
RE: [Sip-implementors]
Interpretation of 'hint' in
thePreferred-Identity
I think section 6 is pretty clear on this. PPI is only a suggestion/request
so I guess its up to the proxy as to whether to use the hint or not.
If there is a P-Prefferred-Identity header:
1) If the proxy recognizes it as a valid identity for that user and if
there is no local policy for the proxy suggesting some other PAI, then it
can use the one in the PPI header.
2) If the proxy does not accept the PPI as valid identity for the user then
it may either reject that request or use a PAI constructed based on its
local policies.
-Venkat
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 8:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Interpretation of 'hint' in
thePreferred-Identity
Hi,
RFC 3325 states that a proxy may use the P-Preferred-Identity in
an incoming request as a hint to choose among multiple identities that
are configured for a user. The example section shows an example where
the user suggets that he prefers to use the identity [EMAIL PROTECTED] But
the proxy inserts [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the forwarded request.
The RFC does not clearly specify how the proxy should interpret
the 'hint' that is provided. From the syntax of the P-Preferred-Identity
and
the P-Asserted-Identity it seems that one should do a URL comparison to
choose the correct PAI header. But from the example, it seems like either
the display-name or the userinfo part is being used to choose the correct
PAI header.
Can someone provide some clarity or point to discussions which
indicate how the 'hint' should be interpreted. Is it that no rules have
been
laid down so that it is left to individual implementations ? In that case,
could
implementors/authors suggest as to how one would normally interpret the
hint i.e. by comparing which part of the P-Preferred-Identity header.
Thanks in advance,
Subhash Nayak
Hughes Software Systems
http://www.hssworld.com
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
