This is delayed, but I haven't heard of this point being addressed: From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On a more practical level, it only deals with one level of address > mapping, and it's not usable by a UA that doesn't implement the change > -- whereas I would expect that the optimal mechanism is one that > tweaks the behavior of the proxy doing the mapping, and requires no > change from any other system. If the purpose of this is to communicate the targeted URI from the terminating proxy to the UA, I don't see how any mechanism can work unless it is supported by that proxy and that UA. Any of the mechanisms mentioned or discussed (P-Called-Party-ID, To, History-Info) have this property. The property I'm looking for is "If the proxy applies the mechanism, but the UA doesn't understand it, the UA automatically processes the request as if the mechanism was not employed." If we carry the "retargeted AOR" in a URI parameter or header and modify the request-URI as now, we obtain this property. If we don't modify the request-URI, the proxy has to have accurate knowledge of which targets support UA Loose Routing and which don't. Dale _______________________________________________ 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
