Hi,
IF we would remove that requierment, and ONLY care about the case when
the R-URI is replaced with the CONTACT, I don't think we need to do
anything. I believe P-Called-Party-ID already solves that.
Regards,
Christer
________________________________
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Elwell, John
Sent: 12. maaliskuuta 2009 15:31
To: Hans Erik van Elburg
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip] Terminology (was RE: Fwd:
I-DACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt
Hans Erik,
The way I interpreted the 01 draft, you would not get the
freephone number anyway. If that is a requirement, then I accept my
suggestion won't suffice.
John
________________________________
From: Hans Erik van Elburg
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 12 March 2009 12:57
To: Elwell, John
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip] Terminology (was RE: Fwd:
I-DACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt
But that does not solve the freephone service use case.
Freephone represents a use case where the R-URI is replaced with an AoR
of user B - not with the contact of user B.
A calls Bfreephonenumber routed the B (AOR) routed to
B's contact.
The target-uri draft is interested in obtaining:
Bfreephonenumber as that is what A used to reach B.
So what we like to see that B UA receives is something
like
H-I: Bfreephone; "istarget",\
B,\
contact-B
So you want to get Bfreephonenumber and not B.
In certain situations you are also interested in B, I
guess that PBX's would interested in that to deliver to the correct
user. We could distinguish them like:
H-I: Bfreephone; "istarget",\
B,"aor"\
contact-B
BR,
/Hans Erik van Elburg
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Elwell, John
<[email protected]> wrote:
If 'istarget' is used only to identify the value
that was overwritten in
the Request-URI by a contact URI, an alternative
approach would be to
flag the contact URI H-I entry as 'iscontact'.
Then the UAS would just
need to look for the most recent H-I entry that
is not marked
'iscontact'.
John
________________________________
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Hans Erik van Elburg
Sent: 12 March 2009 08:35
To: Mary Barnes
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip] Terminology (was RE:
Fwd:
I-DACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt
Yes, because you are using the 3261 use
of target and the
4244bis introduced definition of retarget. I
thought it was clear that
we need other words as those definitions don't
match the target-uri
drafts use of the terms. Also they do not
suffice to provide a solution
for the use cases in the target-uri draft.
The 3261 text you refer to is exactly
about the case where the
home proxy overwrites the Request-URI with a new
target. This target is
teh registered contact address. And hence this
would be what target-uri
calls a hop or a route. This case and this is
where it gets confusing is
not a "retarget" in the target-uri draft use of
the term.
The target-uri draft states:
"To avoid confusion, we
refer to a SIP URI that is an address
for a user or resource
as a
"target" and a SIP URI that is a hop
for reaching that user
as a
"hop".
Apparently that does not suffice to avoid
confusion.
As for the tagging, speaking about the
solution before agreeing
on the terminology and the problem it should
solve is meaningless.
/Hans Erik van Elburg
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Mary
Barnes
<[email protected]> wrote:
Responses below [MB].
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Erik van Elburg
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009
6:42 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: Shida Schubert; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Terminology (was RE:
[Sip] Fwd: I-D
ACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt
I was talking about the concept.
The use cases only describe
cases where the target-uri
(lets call that
current target from now) has been
lost when an initial
request for a
dialog or standalone request
arrives at the UAS.
[MB] And I think this is where
the terminology confusion
starts - I
don't think of the "lost"
target-uri as being the
"current" target. In
my mind, the "current" target is
reflected by the last
hi-entry and the
request-uri in the incoming
request at the UAS. If the
entity that sent
the request was the entity that
added the last hi-entry,
then the uri in
that hi-entry is the same as the
request-URI in the SIP
request that
arrives at the UAS. I refer to
the "lost" uri as the one
that was
"retargeted" - that's the one the
UAS wants to pull from
the hi-entries
in the incoming request. That
hi-entry was not the one
that was just
added by the entity that built
the request just received
by the UAS.
That hi-entry is tagged with
whatever name we are going
to tag it with
BEFORE the request is forwarded
(using the term forward
per section 16.6
of RFC 3261). That tag is added
once the target set of
potential
candidates for the new request
uri are determined in
section 16.5 of
3261 (with "target set" being a
3261 term), just before
the request is
forwarded in section 16.6 to one
of those targets. A
new hi-entry
(which will be the last hi-entry
in the request received
by the UAS) is
added in section 16.6 of 3261 as
the request is
forwarded. At this
point in time, the lost
information is in the previous
hi-entry when the
outgoing request is sent. [/MB]
What has been lost is the current
target of the request:
[MB] Right - at which point in my
mind, it's no longer
the current
target ;) Maybe we call it
"lost". [/MB]
Current target
The current target of an
initial request for a dialog
or standalone
request is the name or address
to which the request is
targeted, i.e.
either the initial target
inserted in the Request-URI
by the UAC that
originates the request, or when
a retarget occurred,
the target
provided in that retarget
operation. Reroute and
translation
operations never change the
current target.
[MB] I don't think this
definition fits what you want -
i.e., if there
is no retargeting, then none of
the hi-entries are
tagged - i.e., you
won't have your concept of
current. The way it works is
that if no
hi-entries are tagged, then you
know that there was no
retargeting, thus
you know the request-uri has not
been lost. [/MB]
This defintion only makes sense
when the following
definitions are used:
Name:
A name is a moniker for an
entity which refers to it
in a way which
reveals nothing about where it
is in a network. In
SIP, tel URI
which doesn't represent the
location of the entity is
a name.
Address:
An address is an identifier for
an entity which
describes it by its
location on the network. In
SIP, the SIP URI itself
is a form of
address because the host part
of the URI, the only
mandatory part of
the URI besides the scheme
itself, indicates the
location of a SIP
server that can be used to
handle the request.
Route:
Finally, a route is a
sequence of SIP entities
(including the UA
itself!) which are
traversed in order to forward a
request to an address
or name.
Retarget (other term might be
needed, as this is highly
confusing):
A Request-URI rewrite
operation that changes the
target identity of
the request.
Reroute (other term might be
needed):
A Request-URI rewrite
operation that does not change
the current
target of the request, but
determines the route/next
hop taken to
reach the target-identity.
/Hans Erik
_______________________________________________
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
