And also value for "the last hop" (which is not using loose route, which is the whole point and why Jonathan had frame this problem this way in is loose-route draft).
> -----Original Message----- > From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00) > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 16:03 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); 'Jonathan Rosenberg' > Cc: '[email protected]'; 'Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)' > Subject: RE: [Sip] > draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-00.txt: P-Called-Party-ID > > Yes. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 6:06 PM > To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); 'Jonathan Rosenberg' > Cc: '[email protected]'; 'Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)' > Subject: RE: [Sip] > draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-00.txt: P-Called-Party-ID > > Well, you do get value out of H-I, but only if there is retargeting. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00) > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 15:58 > > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Jonathan Rosenberg > > Cc: [email protected]; Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) > > Subject: RE: [Sip] > > draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-00.txt: P-Called-Party-ID > > > > The following note is in section 4.3.3.1 in RFC 4244 wrt loose > > routing: > > "Note that in > > the case of loose routing, the Request-URI does not > change during > > the > > forwarding of a Request; thus, the capturing of History-Info for > > such > > a request would result in duplicate Request-URIs with different > > indices. " > > > > So, basically, if you do loose routing, you don't get much > value with > > H-I, but there is no change in behavior for capturing H-I > entries in > > the case of loose routing -i.e. H-I doesn't look to see that you're > > doing loose routing and not capture entries. > > > > Mary > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > > Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 5:10 PM > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg > > Cc: [email protected]; Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) > > Subject: Re: [Sip] > > draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-00.txt: P-Called-Party-ID > > > > If the request-URI doesn't change, then there is no H-I > entry added. > > > > Or am I missing your question? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 14:36 > > > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > > > Cc: Shida Schubert; [email protected]; Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) > > > Subject: Re: [Sip] > > > draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-00.txt: P-Called-Party-ID > > > > > > Added. However, I must say I remain confused about handling > > of loose > > > routes and H-I. In my example, the request will go from > H-B to OB-B > > > due to a route learned via a Path header field in a > > REGISTER. As such, > > > that request should also contain a Route header pointing to > > OB-B. What > > > would H-I look like in that case? > > > > > > -Jonathan R. > > > > > > Francois Audet wrote: > > > > Actually, I think what you see in the call flow is not the > > > last leg, > > > > but the one before (i.e. to OB-B). > > > > > > > > I would suggest that Jonathan adds the last leg to <b>, > > > including the > > > > Request-URI being replaced by the registered contact. > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Behalf Of > > > >> Shida Schubert > > > >> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 02:02 > > > >> To: Jonathan Rosenberg > > > >> Cc: [email protected] List; Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) > > > >> Subject: Re: [Sip] > > > >> draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-00.txt: > P-Called-Party-ID > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I also noticed that on the example call flow in > section 4, the > > > >> R-URI on the last leg should be that of the contact address > > > >> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). > > > >> > > > >> Regards > > > >> Shida > > > >> > > > >> On 31-Oct-08, at 9:51 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> The draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt draft > > > >> contained text > > > >>> on why the P-Called-Party-ID header was used. Would it be a > > > >> good idea > > > >>> to keep that text in this spec, because I have > already received > > > >>> questions regarding that. > > > >>> > > > >>> Regards, > > > >>> > > > >>> Christer > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line > > > >> Internet-Drafts > > > >>>>> directories. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Title : Delivery of Request-URI > > > Targets to User Agents > > > >>>>> Author(s) : J. Rosenberg > > > >>>>> Filename : > > > draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-00.txt > > > >>>>> Pages : 12 > > > >>>>> Date : 2008-10-26 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> When a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) proxy receives > > > a request > > > >>>>> targeted at a URI identifying a user or resource it is > > > >> responsible > > > >>>>> for, the proxy translates the URI to a registered contact > > > >> URI of an > > > >>>>> agent representing that user or resource. In the > > process, the > > > >>>>> original URI is removed from the request. Numerous use > > > >> cases have > > > >>>>> arisen which require this information to be delivered > > > to the user > > > >>>>> agent. This document describes these use cases and > > defines an > > > >>>>> extension to the History-Info header field which allows it > > > >>>> to be used > > > >>>>> to support those cases. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri- > > > >>>> del > > > >>>>> ivery-00.txt > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > > >>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant > > > mail reader > > > >>>>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII > > > version of the > > > >>>>> Internet-Draft. > > > >>>>> > > <mime-attachment>_______________________________________________ > > > >>>>> I-D-Announce mailing list > > > >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > > > >>>>> Internet-Draft directories: > > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or > > > >>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>> 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 > > > >>>> > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> 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 > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> 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 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 111 Wood > Avenue South > > > Cisco Fellow Iselin, NJ 08830 > > > Cisco, Voice Technology Group > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: > (408) 902-3084 > > > http://www.cisco.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ 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
