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
