Yeah I like STUD because it's explicit. But the big difference I see is what happens if R1 supports STUD but P2, or more likely a domain between P2 and P3, Retarget but don't support STUD. Then R2 gets a Target which is wrong - it's the URI of C vs. D (or something between D). In other words it could be the target uri of a completely different user/domain.
With UALR, since retargeting proxies already replace the req-uri today, you'd get a req-uri which isn't wrong. Even if P2 did Rerouting and not UALR (ie, still replaced the req-uri but was not really retargeting), the req-uri received by R2 wouldn't be totally wrong. It would lose the parameters and info that could have been useful, but it's less likely to cause harm. (maybe?) The counter-argument is what happens if P3 doesn't do UALR, but I would think it's far more likely that an operator of a domain has control over the equipment in their domain. Though I'm probably thinking in circles - this whole topic makes my head hurt. :) -hadriel > -----Original Message----- > From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:28 AM > To: Hadriel Kaplan; Dean Willis; IETF SIP List > Subject: RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement forRequest- > URI,retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!) > > Hadriel, > > Well, I have been having a side thread with Christer and Hans Erik, and > the only difference other than syntax that they could convince me of was > support for UAs that do not register, in that with loose-route you would > need additional provisioning in the domain proxy to say that the UA > (gateway or whatever) supports loose-route. Given that you would need > provisioning in the proxy anyway for such UAs, I didn't see this as a > big deal, but it is a difference. > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 18 January 2008 15:15 > > To: Elwell, John; Dean Willis; IETF SIP List > > Subject: RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement > > forRequest-URI,retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!) > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ 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
