With the proposed UA loose routing mechanism, a UA can mint new AORs or
new GRUUs by simply adding URI params to its AOR or gruu, and passing
them around.
The question is, do we need to standardize the set of URI params that
the UA can add to its AOR or GRUU?
One argument in favor of such a thing is that it avoids conflicts with
URI params that might be meaningful to the home proxy, unbeknownst to
the UA. It also helps guide implementations on what to expect in URIs
when this capability is used.
On the other hand, by not standardizing a URI param, we can allow UA to
use any number of params using names of their liking, which is nice and
flexible.
A middle-ground is to standardize a prefix, kind of like what we did for
media feature tags in RFC 3840 (though not a shining example of a
successful RFC).
I've been back and forth on this, but based on the principle of least
surprise, would propose a specific URI parameter be chosen.
Comments?
-Jonathan R.
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
