Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi Paul,
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.
As indicated in chapter 3, one of the main issues/limitations with the
J'draft solution is that the entity wanting to use it must have
knowledge whether the next hop also supports it. My understanding from
off-line discussions I had with Jonathan in Vancouver is also that
Jonathan agrees to that issue/limitation.
The purpose of the examples is just to show what can go wrong if the
next hop does not understand the mechanism. But, if we all agree to the
limitation with the J'draft solution I don't know whether we need to
spend too much time on the examples.
The limitation is the limitation. It means that you don't use the
mechanism if you don't know the next hop supports it. So its useless to
speculate what would go wrong if you use the mechanism with a next hop
that doesn't support it.
- 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.
No, as far as the alternative to the J'draft solution is concerned, the
alternative is Target. We believe it can be used for all listed
use-cases.
I don't understand. Several of them called for using P-CPI.
Since I myself have been talking about P-CPI as an alternative, we
wanted to show in which cases it could be used as an alternative, and
why we think that P-CPI still would have to be used in IMS.
But, we have realized that P-CPI as defined and used today probably
would not solve all the use-cases, and that is the reason we came up
with the Target header.
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.
I appologize if the P-CPI text causes confusion. Again, the alternative
to the J'draft solution we propose is Target.
Regards,
Christer
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-d
el
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
_______________________________________________
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
