I think we should charge customers per URI in the protocol. We'd be rich.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 01:20 > To: Christer Holmberg; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > Cc: [email protected]; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Paul Kyzivat > Subject: RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters > to UAS via proxy > > Christer, > > I guess what still confuses me is, when both Target and P-CPI > are used, which comes first, i.e., which represents the > earlier target? When I read the draft, I thought Target was > earlier. From various clarifying emails I now get the > impression that Target is later. Can you confirm? > > Picking up on Francois' point about History-Info, with the > introduction of Target and P-CPI we do indeed have a lot of > URIs, and of course History-Info can already convey all these > URIs and any others. The difference is that History-Info does > not give particular semantics to each of the URIs it conveys > - they are simply a succession of targets. > With Target and P-CPI we are aiming to define specific > semantics. I am concerned whether we will be able to define > these semantics tightly enough to ensure consistent > implementations. The more URIs we try to define, the harder > it will be to assign each one a clearly distinguishable > meaning. I hope the next draft will help. > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 15 January 2008 08:48 > > To: Francois Audet > > Cc: [email protected]; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Paul Kyzivat; Elwell, John > > Subject: RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS > > via proxy > > > > > > Hi, > > > > P-CPI could probably be useful in some cases, in addition to Loose > > Route/Target. And, as the draft says, P-CPI will still have > to be used > > in IMS, because there are procedures defined for it. > > > > However, again, the purpose of the draft was to provide an > alternative > > to the Loose Route alternative, and that alternative is Target only. > > > > I am working on an updated version of the draft to make that more > > clear. > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hum. I guess then P-Called-ID would then be useful with > Loose-route > > >as well (although now I'm thinking that History-Info covers it). > > > > > >I think explaining all that in great and precise details, with a > > >concrete example would be very useful. > > > > > >And then we could compare P-Target with Loose-route. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 03:56 > > > > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > > > > Cc: [email protected]; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Paul Kyzivat; > Elwell, John > > > > Subject: RE: [Sip] RE: Delivering request-URI and > > parameters to UAS > > > > via proxy > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Francois, > > > > > > > > >I think what you meant by Target was more the "Current" > > > > >target as opposed to the Initiatl Target. > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > >And if that's the case, then I don't see why it is > > different from > > > > >P-Called-ID (although I might be missing something > with what the > > > > >P-Called_ID is supposed to be). > > > > > > > > In the draft we try to explain the difference. But, we are > > > working on > > > > the text to make it more clear. > > > > > > > > The P-CPI is inserted when the R-URI is rewritten by > the Contact > > > > address of the UAS. RFC3455 calls that operation > > > "retargeting", but we > > > > don't think that is the definition for retarget used in the > > > > ua-loose-route draft, which says: > > > > > > > > "When a home proxy receives a request and accesses a > > > location service, > > > > the resulting contact(s) obtained from the location service are > > > > considered the last hop in the route towards the entity > > > addressed by > > > > the Request-URI. Since that target, almost by definition, > > > can claim > > > > the identity of the URI prior to translation, the operation > > > is one of > > > > routing and not retargeting." > > > > > > > > So, if we follow the definitions in the ua-loose-route > > draft, P-CPI > > > > would be inserted due to a reroute - not retarget. > > > > > > > > But, no matter whether we call it retarget or reroute, > > the point is > > > > that the P-CPI is inserted when the R-URI is rewritten with the > > > > Contact address of the UAS. The scope of Target is wider > > than that, > > > > and can be used in any retargeting situation. > > > > > > > > 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
