Re: [Sip] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt

[Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg at ericsson.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:27 AM
> To: Elwell, John; Hadriel Kaplan; Shida Schubert; sip at ietf.org
> 
> We had a looooong discussion about that (ua-loose-route vs Target), and I
> really hope we should not go back there now.

I wouldn't have, were it not for the Sip-Forum experience.  If a bunch of people who spent time on the topic don't even want to use the mechanism, what hopes do we have that it will succeed in the marketplace?  

And don't get me wrong - it could have been in a "Target" header too and we wouldn't have used that either, I think.  Although part of the reason is because we know IP-PBX's actually support Jonathan's original ua-loose-route concept (just without the Route header part), whereas I'm not so sure what legacy endpoints will do with an AoR-req-uri; nor whether the req-uri would ever survive end-to-end in Peering cases.  

So I was in favor of doing a separate Header because it was "safer", in terms of not breaking interoperability - but it's less chance for actually getting used, which in a way does break something too (customer expectations).  Ugh.  Screwed either way.

-hadriel