Hi Hannes, >>>>I guess it would also be possible to put the original service URN into the P-Called-Party-Id >>>>header (as for normal calls), eventhough I don't think it's currently specified. >>>I am not sure whether this is a good solution. >>Why not? >I read through >http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01.txt >and I got the impression that Jonathan has encountered a >generic problem and the description he provided looked >reasonable to me to argue for the Request URI to remains >unchanged end-to-end and not to use other solutions. He >listed two other solutions and the P- header approach does >not look generic to me.
Well, that is what the discussion about the draft pretty much is all about. I think that the P- header approach works. You can use it without capability discovery (if the receiver does not support it he will simply discard it) and it does not have the possible backward compability issues with the other solution. And, the P- header has been part of IMS for a long time now (since release 5). There were been some discussions that the P- header is not "standards track" etc, and that something would have to be done regarding that if we want to make it more "generic". But, that should not affect existing deployments/usages of the header. Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ 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
