[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Sip] Updated route construct specification
Hi,
Thank you for putting this document together! Some initial comments and
questions.
My FIRST comment/question is: do we really need the "p2sr" flag? Isn't
it enough that, if the UA includes the "sr" flag, that the registrar
simply generates the Service-Route based on the Path and return it to
the UA?
My SECOND comment/question is on the "table" on page 9. In rows 2, 3 and
5 it is indicated that the new SR procedures are used, ie the
Service-Route should override the outbound proxy in the UA. Now, in an
IMS scenario P1 could be a P-CSCF, and if it doesn't insert the "p2sr"
it would not receive the initial requests. Or, have I missunderstood?
My THIRD comment/question is on the statement in chapter 2.3. The text
says:
"RFC 3261 is also clear that the resulting route set applies to
mid-dialog requests. It
implies (though does not explicitly say) that the resulting route set
overrides any default outbound proxies (which represent a pre-loaded
route set)."
I don't think this is "clear" at all, and from my interop experience the
does-the-outbound-proxy-apply-to-mid-dialog-requests question comes up
quite often. And, just a couple of weeks ago I was informed about a
Cisco phone sending BYE to the outbound proxy, instead of using the
route set, so... ;)
My FOURTH comment/question is on the statement in chapter 6.1, saying
that the Service-Route is recomputed for each registration. I think it
would be good to mention that in that sense the Service-Route is
DIFFERENT from Record-Route/Route, which is not recomputed (e.g. using
re-INVITE/UPDATE) once it has been created. Only the remote/local target
can be changed.
Regards,
Christer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen at cisco.com]
> Sent: 17. lokakuuta 2006 23:01
> To: IETF SIP List
> Subject: [Sip] Updated route construct specification
>
> I've updated this document. It is (once again) almost
> completely rewritten. Until it appears in the archives, you
> can pick it up at:
>
> http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-rosenberg-sip-route-constr
> uct-02.txt
>
> Basically, it proposes to turn Service-Route into the inverse
> of Path, so that Service-Route/Path work more like
> record-routing. This is now specified in a way which is
> backwards compatible with IMS, which was an issue for the
> previous spec. I believe this makes service-route usable for
> the internet at large, and it is a key part of solving the
> sip-outbound mid-dialog failover problem. Its also WAY
> simpler than previous versions. The whole bit in there about
> redirections overriding route sets is now folded into the
> more general UA loose routing document I also published.
>
> Just to get some controversy thrown in there, the draft also
> specifies as part of its behavior that a UA register only a
> single contact at a time, and only that contact get reflected
> in the REGISTER response.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan R.
> --
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza
> Cisco Fellow Parsippany, NJ
> 07054-2711
> Cisco Systems
> jdrosen at cisco.com FAX: (973) 952-5050
> http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000
> http://www.cisco.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use
> sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip