Frankly, I tought the conclusion was to investigate if pros and cons of two approches:
1 - Loose route approach 2 - Having a header with the original target (P-Called-Party-ID, RFC 3455) > -----Original Message----- > From: Dean Willis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 22:45 > To: Hannes Tschofenig > Cc: IETF SIP List; ECRIT > Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Re: [Sip] > draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01.txt > > Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > No response received -- resend. > > > > Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > > >> Dear SIP WG members, > >> > >> during the ECRIT meeting we learned that the SIP working group > >> "rejected" the concept described in > >> draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01.txt. > >> > >> Could someone please give us more information about this > decision as > >> it impacts the work we do in ECRIT? > > I wouldn't say that UA Loose Route was "rejected" so much as > "does not yet have consensus". > > This is in part influenced by "WG doesn't seem to have a > compelling reason to make such a significant change." > > Perhaps ECRIT has a compelling reason? > > -- > Dean > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
