Hi John, >Thanks for this revision, which makes things somewhat >clearer. I do have a couple of comments: > >1. I am not sure I agree with the assertions in section 4 >concerning issues with the mechanisms in loose-route. Taking >example 1, the Route header field should contain enough >entries to get you to the registered contact, not just to an >intermediate proxy. Therefore this situation should not arise >with a correctly implemented home proxy. It is not clear to >me how example 2 could arise either, for similar reasons. The >MGC case can be resolved by taking into account the option >tag in the REGISTER request, or if it is permanently >registered, through provisioning.
The examples are not meant to show bugs in the loose-route mechanism. They are meant to help people understand the limitations with the loose-route mechanism. >2. Comparing the mechanism proposed with the loose-route >mechanism, my understanding is: >a)When retargeting occurs, the loose-route mechanism places >the new target in the Request URI. Your proposal places the >new target in both the Request-URI and the Target header field. >b) When rerouting, the loose-route mechanism places the new >route (i.e., the registered contact) in the Route header >field. Your proposal places the new route in the Request-URI >(the latter as per RFC 3261). >So the two mechanisms solve exactly the same problems using a >slightly different mechanism. Correct? Yes. The two solutions intend to solve the same problem. >3. How P-Called-Party-ID fits into this is not really >relevant from an IETF perspective - it seems there are some >3GPP-specific situations where the contents of >P-Called-Party-ID will not equal the contents of Target. Correct? Correct. >4. If my suggestion in point 1 above that the loose-route >mechanism does not suffer from the problems suggested, then >each mechanism will work and each addresses the same problem. >So it is just down to a beauty contest between the two. Correct? See question 1. We believe that our solution does not have the same limitations as the loose-route solution. But, again, both solutions intend to solve the same problem. Regards, Christer > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 16 January 2008 08:41 > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Paul Kyzivat; Elwell, John; Jeroen van > > Bemmel; Francois Audet > > Subject: Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via > proxy - new > > version of the draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery draft > > > > > > Hi, > > > > We've uploaded a new version (-01) of the Target draft. > > > > We've tried to make things more clear. I've also removed all text > > about P-Called-Party-ID, except from one chapter where we try to > > explain the semantical difference between Target and P-CPI. > > > > You can also find the draft from: > > http://users.piuha.net/cholmber/drafts/draft-holmberg-sip-targ > > et-uri-del > > ivery-01.txt > > > > 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
