Yes, although there are comments and objections,
I didn't aware of such consensus that the draft was
totally objected by the WG.
Actually, part of the solution is interesting to me.
Assuming we could group the problem statements into 3
categories:
a) conversion for contact binding; b) conversion for
routing resolution and c) conversion for services.
1: I'd suggest using P-Called-Party-ID to for category
a) problem and loose routing for the other 2.
and I think Ecrit problem can be categoried as
problem b or c.
2: When would proxy apply loose route after conversion
for category b/c is subject to local policy or some kind
of indication provided by external conversion/mapping
service.
3: How to define a uri parameter for sub-address purpose
is somewhat independent from the draft to me.
But it's interesting. I'd suggest specifying it
separately and with thorough considerations for how to
implement sub-address like services in SIP.
Cheers.
Peili
-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Audet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:54 AM
To: Dean Willis; Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: IETF SIP List; ECRIT
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Re: [Sip]
draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01.txt
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
_______________________________________________
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
