Hey John, Inline... > -----Original Message----- > From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:48 AM > > > > But in the re-targeting scenario such as: > > RTRG RRT > > +---+ +---+ > > |R1 | |R2 | > > B /+---+\ C E /+---+\ F > > RT / \ RT RT / \ RT > > +---+/ \+---+ D +---+/ \+---+ > > |P1 | |P2 +---+P3 | |P4 | > > A /+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+\ G > > / \ > > +---+/ \+---+ > > |UAC| |UAS| > > +---+ +---+ > > > > UA-Loose-routing wants the req-uri seen on connection "C" I think. > > To header gives you A. > > PCPID gives you E. > > Hist-Info gives you A,B,C,D,E,F. > [JRE] According to Dean's definition of RT, it does not change the > Request-URI (only the Route header field presumably, or maybe not even > that). > So C, D and E are the same. Also A and B are the same, and F and G are > the same. > So I think: > - UA-Loose-routing gives you C/D/E > - To gives you A/B > - PCPID gives you C/D/E > - Target gives you C/D/E > - Hist-info gives you A/B, C/D/E and F/G.
Yes, I agree that is the *theory*. :) I drew it that way though so we could argue about what the UAS/UALR-draft _wants_ to happen vs. what _will_ happen if P2 or P3 are not purely RT's and didn't support a new draft. (Since it seemed the conversation was going that way previously on this list, for example when Christer pointed out the difference between Target and PCPID) For example, I think there is more than just a syntax difference between Christer's sip-target-uri-delivery draft (STUD?) and Jonathan's UALR approach. Though I have no idea which one is better. -hadriel _______________________________________________ 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
