RE: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy

["DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage at alcatel-lucent.com>]

(As WG chair)

I am seeing consensus on the second draft.......


.....that everyone is confused by the semantics applied to the various
headers, and the mail exchange does not seem to be clearing it up.

I urge Christer and Hans Erik to get a new version out as soon as
possible in the hope of removing some of the confusion.

Regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage at alcatel-lucent.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:58 PM
> To: sip at ietf.org
> Subject: [Sip] Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy
> 
> (As WG chair)
> 
> In fulfilment of our charter items of
> 
> Dec 2007    Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy to
> WGLC  
> Feb 2008    Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy to
> IESG (PS)
> 
> We now have a couple of proposals on the table for solving 
> the problem.
> 
> The original draft from Jonathan and which led to the 
> creation of the charter items by the WG is unfortunately 
> expired, but is at:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01.txt
> 
> The alternative document from Christer, etc is at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-holmberg-sip-target-
> uri-delive
> ry-00.txt
> 
> We obviously need to make a decision between the two 
> approaches so please attempt to address the following 
> specific points via the mailing
> list:
> 
> 1)	Problem cases: These are summarised in section 4.4 of
> draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01 and from my read of the 
> other draft, I don't believe that this draft adds any others. 
> If you believe there are other cases that should be covered 
> by the solution, then please identify them. If there is 
> support on any new problem cases, I would encourage the 
> authors of both drafts to add text concerning these problem cases.
> 
> 2)	Clarifications: If for any reason you don't understand either
> draft, or believe that there are technical issues that are 
> not represented in the current draft, please post your 
> questions / comments to the list. I would encourage authors 
> of both drafts to revise as frequently as appropriate to 
> reflect the current state of discussion.
> 
> 3)	Support for either position. If you wish to indicate support for
> either position please do so, but please accompany this is 
> technical reasoning as to why you have this position, as that 
> will help other members of the WG form a position.
> 
> I would encourage as much list discussion as possible before 
> Philadelphia. I suspect we will need to have a discussion at 
> the face-to-face meeting in Philadephia, but list discussion 
> is essential prior to that. If we can solve this positions on 
> list, then well and good, and even better (that is how we are 
> meant to make decisions).
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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