Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals

["Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg at ericsson.com>]

Hi,

I agree with Martin.

However, I still fail to understand how Target would be more "complex"
than e.g. History-Info. 

Regards,

Christer


-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
Sent: 29. maaliskuuta 2008 14:27
To: Christer Holmberg; Dale.Worley at comcast.net; sip at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals

Predictability is better criteria. Complex and predictable is preferred,
over simple and not predictable.

Cheers,

Martin 

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Christer Holmberg
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:23 AM
To: Dale.Worley at comcast.net; sip at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals


Please define "complexity".

Regards,

Christer
 

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Dale.Worley at comcast.net
Sent: 25. maaliskuuta 2008 18:29
To: sip at ietf.org
Subject: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals

I've put together a comparison chart of the varous retargeting
proposals:

			ua-loose-route	target-uri	History-Info
URI-
							 (updated)
param.

Upward-compatible	N		Y		Y
Y
with RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible	depends		Y		Y
Y
for UA?

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y
Y
intermediate proxies?

Complexity		low		low		high
low

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y
N
intermediate routing?

Multiple targets?	N		N		Y
N


The proposals are:

ua-loose-route - draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-02

target-uri - draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01

History-Info - History-Info (RFC 4244), with additional parameters as
needed

URI-param. - a URI-parameter like the 'target' proposed in RFC 4458


The criteria are:

Upward-compatible with RFC 3263?

If a message has no Route headers, is its destination to be determined
from the request-URI host-port as in RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible for UA?

Is the proposal compatible with UAs that use RFC 3263 to examine the
request-URI to determine if they are the destination of the request.

Complexity

Multiple targets?

Does the mechanism display more than the latest retargeted URI?


Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.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://www.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://www.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://www.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