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

Re: [Sip] Terminology (was RE: Fwd: I-DACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt



When I use "retarget" I am using the definition that I put into 4244bis.  So, if you could ignore the tag or change it to 'iscontact' or whatever, what would you change in that definition? Also, consider that if you were to change everyplace that I use "retarget"/"retargeted"/"retargeting" in 4244bis with 'iscontact' the text would not make sense. So, even if we change the name of the tag, we still need to understand the concept or define another term that means that the request-uri in the incoming request (which should be the same as the last hi-entry in the request) is being chnaged due to service lookup, configuration, blah, blah, blah and that to meet the requirements in the target-uri document, we want to tag this entry so that this request-uri is not "lost" - i.e., this is the one the services identified in the target-uri document care about.
 
So, right now, here's what's in 4244bis:
 
   The term "retarget" is used in this document to refer to the process
   of a Proxy Server/User Agent Client (UAC) changing a Uniform Resource
   Identifier (URI) in a request based on a lookup in a location service
   and thus changing the target of the request.
 
We have previously discussed that we do need to expand the "based on a lookup in a location service" to include configuration, etc., so let's not debate that.
 
But, what explicitly is the concern with that definition?
 
Mary.
 


From: Hans Erik van Elburg [mailto:ietf.hanserik at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:55 AM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: Elwell, John; sip at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] Terminology (was RE: Fwd: I-DACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt

I'm fine with discussing implementation if everyone is meaning the same if they use the same words.

As  to the "retarget" term such does not seem to be the case.

/Hans Erik van Elburg