(As WG chair) I am seeing consensus on the second draft.......
.....that everyone is confused by the semantics applied to the various headers, and the mail exchange does not seem to be clearing it up. I urge Christer and Hans Erik to get a new version out as soon as possible in the hope of removing some of the confusion. Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:58 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy > > (As WG chair) > > In fulfilment of our charter items of > > 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) > > We now have a couple of proposals on the table for solving > the problem. > > The original draft from Jonathan and which led to the > creation of the charter items by the WG is unfortunately > expired, but is at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01.txt > > The alternative document from Christer, etc is at: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-holmberg-sip-target- > uri-delive > ry-00.txt > > We obviously need to make a decision between the two > approaches so please attempt to address the following > specific points via the mailing > list: > > 1) Problem cases: These are summarised in section 4.4 of > draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01 and from my read of the > other draft, I don't believe that this draft adds any others. > If you believe there are other cases that should be covered > by the solution, then please identify them. If there is > support on any new problem cases, I would encourage the > authors of both drafts to add text concerning these problem cases. > > 2) Clarifications: If for any reason you don't understand either > draft, or believe that there are technical issues that are > not represented in the current draft, please post your > questions / comments to the list. I would encourage authors > of both drafts to revise as frequently as appropriate to > reflect the current state of discussion. > > 3) Support for either position. If you wish to indicate support for > either position please do so, but please accompany this is > technical reasoning as to why you have this position, as that > will help other members of the WG form a position. > > I would encourage as much list discussion as possible before > Philadelphia. I suspect we will need to have a discussion at > the face-to-face meeting in Philadephia, but list discussion > is essential prior to that. If we can solve this positions on > list, then well and good, and even better (that is how we are > meant to make decisions). > > 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
