> -----Original Message----- > From: Dale Worley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 11:13 AM > > On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 13:43 -0500, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > > > No - read the (latest) draft. The to-tag is in fact also used, to > > dis-ambiguate these things. And I note that this would mean it can't > > be changed. I'm on the fence whether to create a surrogate for that > > as well. (ugh) > > But B2BUAs now change to-tags, so we don't have the "works in most > current deployments" condition. Also, to-tags may have the same problem > as call-ids, namely that they reveal the manufacturer of the originating > UA. I think the mechanism needs to be revised to deal with this.
Yeah, I've been on the fence about that as I said. I loathe adding complexity, but I admit it is probably justified for tags. I wonder if we really need the from-tag at all for this type of thing. Forget for the moment about any of this and just think of the current Call-ID and tags, and assume there were no B2BUA's. Is there ever a case where a UAC would generate a request with the same Call-ID as a previous request, but a different from-tag? The to-tag we needed to identify forked responders generating unique early-dialogs with a common Call-ID, but why did we need the UAC to generate a from-tag? (I'm feeling dumb that I can't figure out the answer) -hadriel _______________________________________________ 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
