Re: [Simple] Issue 4: Recipient of IMDN can appear different than sender

[Ben Campbell <ben at estacado.net>]

I actually lean towards not having a separate notification-to header.  
I think it creates more problems than value.

On Nov 7, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Hisham Khartabil wrote:

> I think having that header is ok. But the reason you give about  
> keeping state out of the B2BUAs and relays is not a good reason.  
> Often enough B2BUAs need to be involved in the MDN generation, but  
> thats a topic for a different thread.
>
> Hisham
>
> On Nov 7, 2005, at 4:24 PM, Burger, Eric wrote:
>
> > To enable scenarios where the "sender" of an IM has a generic  
> > address,
> > like "sip:info at example.com", but the user sending the IM has a  
> > specific
> > address, like "sip:agent24 at agentpool.example.com", as well as to keep
> > state out of B2BUA's and relays, the draft has an explicit
> > Disposition-Notification-To header, with the address for the UAS  
> > to send
> > the report to.
> >
> > This has the potential for a bad UAC to IMDN-bomb an unsuspecting
> > third-party.  Thus the draft has a bunch of protocol machinery for  
> > the
> > UAS to ensure identity of the requestor, if only to enable Level 8
> > handling of the problem.
> >
> > OK with everyone?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Simple mailing list
> > Simple at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> Simple at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple


_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple