Hi, >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.
It's strange that we have convinced you about that, since it not the use-case we have been talking about... :) Regards, Christer > > -----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
