That's fine - we just need to be careful with the wording in 4244 so that the existing normative functionality isn't so impacted. I'll look at the detailed impact of the changes as retarget is quite prevalent in that document. It could be that we can leave it in the early sections (and define it to be the same as the term we agree) and just keep it out of the normative sections - right now, it is only used in a few places other than describing the new parameter in the normative sections. Mary.
________________________________ From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 6:42 AM To: Hans Erik van Elburg; Dean Willis Cc: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email protected]; Elwell, John Subject: RE: [Sip] Terminology (was RE: Fwd:I-DACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt Hi, I think we should use those definitions as base. That way I think we would be able to progress faster. Because, I think we really need to agree on the definitions FIRST. There is no idea on discussing detailed wording in 4244bis if we don't have a common understanding of what we mean. Regards, Christer ________________________________ From: Hans Erik van Elburg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2009 12:19 To: Dean Willis Cc: Christer Holmberg; Mary Barnes; [email protected]; Elwell, John Subject: Re: [Sip] Terminology (was RE: Fwd:I-DACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt Hi Dean, Yes this was exactly how we used/defined the terms at the time we where discussing the ua-loose-route vs Target-header solutions. I still think that this way they are most intuitive and closest to how you would use the terms in natural language. /Hans Erik van Elburg On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Dean Willis <[email protected]> wrote: On Mar 12, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote: A couple of question: 1. Does the 4244bis definition of "retarget" cover the freephone case, when the R-URI is replaced with the AoR of B - not with the contact of B - no matter whether it's done based on location service, configuration or whatever? By the way, I believe that the way I use the words, this is a "reroute" and not a "retarget". In the freephone case, I would still expect the destination to have an awareness that it is the target of freephone calls and have credentials for the freephone number such that it could appropriately authenticate its responses if we had a means to do so. 2. Related to the first question, when you say "...and thus chaning the target of the request", what is the defintion of "target"? My definition is that a "retarget" changes the expected identity of the expected responder, introducing the possibility of an "unanticipated respondent" scenario. This is, AFAIK, very different from the 4244 terminology, which I've always held to be not particularly useful. -- 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
