[cuss] REQ-4 comment
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 01 October 2010 21:54 UTC
Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418753A6B8E for <cuss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.064
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.064 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.185, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRtq5xxi5v+6 for <cuss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A53A3A6B53 for <cuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id o91LteST017069 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <cuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 23:55:40 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.44]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 23:55:40 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "cuss@ietf.org" <cuss@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 23:55:39 +0200
Thread-Topic: REQ-4 comment
Thread-Index: Acthql3L1C9cagCcQz2PL1RIhGCPQQ==
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE2173A6E00@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.13
Subject: [cuss] REQ-4 comment
X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" <cuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss>, <mailto:cuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss>
List-Post: <mailto:cuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss>, <mailto:cuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:54:55 -0000
Requirement 4 states:
REQ-4: The mechanism will allow UUI to be able to survive proxy
retargeting.
Retargeting is a common method of call routing in SIP, and must
not result in the loss of user to user information.
I would like to extend this to be:
REQ-4: The mechanism will allow UUI to be able to survive proxy
retargeting or any other form of redirection of the request.
The reason for this is that in the ISDN, the UUI survives call forwarding, and I would like any SIP service simulating the ISDN call forwarding service to be able to do likewise.
Specifically if A forwards to B1, B1 forwards to B2, and B2 forwards to C, B1 and B2 will both receive the UUI if they receive the information about the forwarded call. Further C will also receive the UUI.
As the call forwarding may not be performed by a proxy, it seems to be sensible to make this requirement a little wider.
regards
Keith
- [cuss] REQ-4 comment DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [cuss] REQ-4 comment Alan Johnston