________________________________
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Shida Schubert
Sent: 11 March 2009 06:13
To: [email protected] List
Cc: Mary Barnes
Subject: [Sip] Fwd: I-D
ACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt
We have submitted the updated target-uri draft based on the
comments
submitted to the list and comments received at IETF73.
I have taken over as editor as Jonathan didn't have the cycles
to
update the draft, with Francois, Christer and Hans Erick as
additional
co-authors and great deal of help from Mary.
The following summarizes the changes made to the target-uri
document
1. Added use-case for toll-free number back
2. Added definition of "retarget" operation.
3. Removed a reference to URN
4. Added a text discussing the difference to P-Called-Party-Id
5. Changed parameter name from "target" to "istarget"
Note, that the target-uri document still contains the normative
text for the
History-Info header.
[JRE] I don't like this. I would prefer to have all the normative stuff
in one place, if RFC 4244 is being revised anyway.
John
In addition, Mary (with Francois as co-author) has submitted a
rfc4244bis, with the following changes:
1. Incorporated the normative aspects of the target-uri document
into the existing normative text in RFC 4244 - the functionality
is
virtually identical (as is some of the text) as the HI based
solution
described in the target-uri document. It's important that the
solution
be integrated into RFC 4244 as it MUST work and be based on the
normative
aspects of RFC 4244.
2. Added the use cases from target-uri the the summary
in the overview of rfc4244bis.
3. Added an additional requirement to capture the "target-uri"
information.
4. Fixed an error in the RFC 4244 ABNF and added "retarget"
parameter.
5. Added a more simplified example.
We had some very long offline exchanges as to the best way
forward and
remaining work for both documents.
Some of the issues identified are:
::Issues::
1. Should we remove the normative text from target-uri and
progress
4244bis along with the target-uri document to meet the
chartered
SIP WG milestone?
2. Name of the parameter.
At the last meeting, parameter "target" was said
inappropriate
because voicemail-uri spec already defines a parameter
called
"target" which also can be found in hi-entry, thus
potentially
causing confusion.
Currently the target-uri draft uses "istarget" and 4244bis
uses
"retarget" but we could never come to
a consensus on what name is appropriate. Other
suggestions have
included the following:
"target-identity" (someone didn't like that "identity" is
also a SIP header)
"reg-uri" (can be paired with "mapped-uri" for item 3
below)
"aor"
"jibberish"
etc.
One reason this is so difficult relates to the problem
statement in target-uri in that
RFC 3261 doesn't differentiate the mechanism by which the
new
(target) Request-URI is selected. Another issue is that
some of the terminology in
RFC 3261 is overloaded - e.g., "forwarding" refers both to
a Proxy
which does not have responsibility for the domain of the
request-URI
in the incoming request, thus the proxy just "forwards"
the request to
the next hop AND "forwarding" is used to describe the
process whereby
the outgoing request is built and "forwarded" to the next
hop at which
point the proxy does not know how the new request-uri was
selected.
RFC 4244 has attempted to clarify the terms and attempts
to use "forward"
in the context of the former situation and "retarget" for
the case whereby
a proxy is responsible for the domain and thus can use a
number of
mechanism to select the new target for the request - e.g.,
a REGISTRAR,
configured data, etc.
3. Related to the last point in item 2 above, it has been
proposed that
we differentiate the hi-entries even more by defining
separate parameters
for registered and configured/mapped contacts.
Currently when the R-URI is translated to a URI which is
either derived
from location service lookup(registered by UA) or from
mapping
table, there is no differentiation as to how the URI was
derived once it is
added to the list of potential targets.
The general consensus of the authors of the two documents
was that it may
be useful for some services to have the hi-entries tagged
with the
more specific information.
And, of course, this gets us into another naming contest.
In the end, the naming
is not so important as long as the term isn't too
overloaded and it is defined
precisely in the document(s).
We would appreciate WG feedback on these issues and any other
comments on
the two documents prior to IETF-74.
Regards,
Shida and Mary.
Begin forwarded message:
From: [email protected]
Date: March 10, 2009 2:30:01 AM JST
To: [email protected]
Subject: I-D
ACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt
Reply-To: [email protected]
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, H. van Elburg, C. Holmberg, F.
Audet, S. Schubert
Filename :
draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt
Pages : 16
Date : 2009-3-9
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 or
configured
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-deliv
ery-01.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.
Content-Type: text/plain<BR>Content-ID:
<[email protected]><BR><BR>
_______________________________________________
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
