Paul, Yes, that was my feeling.
John > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18 January 2008 16:00 > To: Elwell, John > Cc: Hadriel Kaplan; Dean Willis; IETF SIP List > Subject: Re: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem > statementforRequest-URI,retargeting, and SIP routing (long, > but read it!) > > > > Elwell, John wrote: > > 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. > > In the case of registration, it is indicated by the ;lr param on the > contact. In the case of provisioning, you need to provision a > contact, > so its just a matter of provisioning it with ;lr. That is > *still* just > provisioning a uri, so its not really a difference. > > Paul > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ 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
