[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Sip] Record-Route, Path, Service Route, and Multi-Homed Proxies

> In any case, regarding your specific proposal, it sounds 
> eminently reasonable. 

Wow! Thanks! It's been  along time since I've done anything eminently
reasonable!

> Must we come up with a new I-D for this?  It is not new SIP 
> behavior as much as heuristics/clarification/discussion on 
> how a proxy/registrar behaves under a multi-homed machine.  I 
> mean, if rfc3261 does not address multi-homing, can we add a 
> section in Chapter 17?  There are a list of open issues 
> associated with rfc3261 anyway.  My personal preference is to 
> add it in rfc3261-bis since the 
> heuristics/clarifications/discussions do really belong there.

Well, the Service-Route specification is a "new" I-D. Actually, it's
completed WGLC and is awaiting final IESG review. Miguel and Gonzalo
raised some valid concerns that it is not as useful as they want. They
want to use it in conjunction with Path (currently in the rfc-ed queue).
Path refers to Record-Route behavior. So the proposed behavior would
probably need to be described in the Service-Route draft in order to
keep Service-Route from being blocked on 3261bis.

I think.

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip