I'm also totally confused now about what is being proposed. The Target seems identical to the To header field.
I tought that what you (Christer) was arguing for is using the P-Called-Header instead of the new loose route proposal, i.e., not for the "initial target", but for the "current target". > -----Original Message----- > From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 09:01 > To: Paul Kyzivat; Christer Holmberg > Cc: [email protected]; DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Subject: RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters > to UAS via proxy > > Christer, > > In addition to Paul's concerns, I am having difficulty > understanding why the To header field is insufficient for the > cases where the Target header field is proposed. The initial > source of this confusion was the statement "the Target header > field represents > the initial target identity that was used to initiate a session to > the target" > > So we now have 4 fields (ignoring Route): > - To > - Target > - P-Called-ID > - Request-URI > I think it would benefit from a clearer exposition of the > semantics and relationship between these. > > John > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 11 January 2008 15:29 > > To: Christer Holmberg > > Cc: [email protected]; DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > > Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS > > via proxy > > > > 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-targ > > et-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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
