Christer,
I have some questions and comments:
- I don't understand your examples in section 3. They are a bit sketchy
about the assumptions they are making, and in notation. I get lost about
which referenced component has which address, etc. I am far from
convinced that these are problems with appropriate use of the mechanism.
- It seems from your analysis of use cases that it is P-Called-Party
that solves many of them, not Target. So both headers seem to be part of
the solution. Its not entirely clear to me at the moment whether the
R-URI in the loose-route approach aligns with Target or P-Called-Party.
Since they are different, it can't align with both. So there must be
some features it doesn't cover. I haven't fully grokked that yet.
Paul
Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi,
We have submitted a draft with an alternative proposal.
It can also be found at:
http://users.piuha.net/cholmber/drafts/draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-del
ivery-00.txt
Regards,
Christer
-----Original Message-----
From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 9. tammikuuta 2008 18:32
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to
UAS via proxy
A reminder of the deadline on the 11th January for submitting
alternative proposals on the way forward.
Regards
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:27 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
(As WG chair)
We have a couple of milestones that we generated as a result of
discussion of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loo
se-route-01.txt
Dec 2007 Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via
proxy to WGLC
Feb 2008 Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via
proxy to IESG (PS)
This work is currently stalled and the editor needs input.
The document contains various example scenarios where a solution is
required, for which there appears to be no dispute that a
solution is
needed.
The document proposes one solution to resolve these example
scenarios,
but this solution is not gaining consensus. At least one other
solution has been talked about, but there is no
documentation on the
table.
This mail is to identify a deadline for other solutions to
the example
scenarios to be documented as internet drafts, showing how the
solution works for those scenarios. This deadline is:
January 11th 2008
It is appropriate fo these documents to identify any other
scenarios
where such a solution is appropriate. Any other input is
also welcome
in identifying other scenarios.
If we have no such internet-drafts by this deadline, we
will proceed
with completing the solution we have.
Regards
Keith
_______________________________________________
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
