On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM, Hans Erik van Elburg wrote: > There seems to be a misunderstanding here, there is no intention for > stacking Target headers at all. There will always have to be zero or > one > target header field with one clear meaning: "current target". >
I believe you. But like others, I found the draft unclear, and it made more sense if I assumed a stack of Target headers. > As soon as a retarget (using the definition from UALR draft) occurs an > existing target header will have to be removed, as it no longer > represents the current target. Then it doesn't help Charlie knows that he's answering a call meant for Bob when Bob forwards his phone to Charlie and Alice calls Bob. > Params only seems to tackle the parameter loss issue, and it seems > further to solve a different problem alltogether i.e. how to get > parameters from the caller to the callee. Well, that WAS the original goal of US-Loose-Route, and is the thing we have a chartered milestone for: From our charter: Feb 2008 Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy to IESG (PS) > There is a risk that > parameters that where only intended to be received by user B end up at > user C. Well, that can certainly happen with any header. The workaround if it worries you is to use a 302. -- Dean _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
