Francois, I believe the confusion you are talking about was related to the first version of the draft, where we also talked about the P-Called-Party-ID header etc.
I tried to clarify that, and make the second version of the draft more clear. Based on the comments I have received the issues were solved/clarified in the second version of the draft. The only text left about P-Called-Party-ID is the paragraph where we DO explain the difference between it and Target. Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2. huhtikuuta 2008 19:19 To: Hans Erik van Elburg; Juha Heinanen; Christer Holmberg Cc: sip@ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS Subject: RE: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals The loose-route proposal is clear, but attempts to solve a much larger problem. The new header proposal is very far from clear, as was demonstrated by the mailing list discussion, where nobody seems to agree on what the header was supposed to mean. Most people didn't understand why it was different than the P-Called-ID (or whatever that was). Furthermore, what would that header actually mean? Is is the original target as inserted by the first UAC? If so, why is it different than the To header? Is it the target as modified by the originating domain's proxy (for example, "fixing" the phone number to make it into a real E.164 number in a Tel or SIP URI?)? Or is it the last retargeting address? Or any retargeting in between? And how do you define retargeting in the first place? The answers that Christer provided actually confused people who tought they understood the proposal (i.e., people who tought we were talking about the P-Called header). And finally, somebody needs to demonstrate how this can not overlap with History-Info. Saying its "simpler" is misleading. It's simpler until we analyse completely what we are actually shooting for. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hans Erik van Elburg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 02:43 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Juha Heinanen; Christer Holmberg > Cc: sip@ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS > Subject: RE: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals > > It is clearly not the same as History-Info header as has been > explained in the draft and in several previous threads. It > has also been explained why History-Info can not be used for > this as is. > > A simple new header with a clear semantics which provides a > clean solution to the problem is therefore not even > challenged by the History-Info header. Instead you should > argue why History-Info is so bloody good that we should use > it for this. We just learned that it is not even usable as a > diagnostic tool. > > Why carry a whole log of request URI rewrites around when you > are only interested in the current target??? > > /Hans Erik > > -----Original Message----- > From: Francois Audet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 6:18 PM > To: Hans Erik van Elburg; Juha Heinanen; Christer Holmberg > Cc: sip@ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS > Subject: RE: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals > > Any addition of a new header that nobody can explain properly > why it's not the same as History-Info IS rocket science. > > It sounds like we are getting paid by the number of URI we > add to SIP. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hans Erik van Elburg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 01:07 > > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Juha Heinanen; Christer Holmberg > > Cc: sip@ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS > > Subject: RE: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals > > > > The point is that History-Info does not solve the problem > so something > > > new is needed anyway. > > > > And proper use of History-Info is rocket science as Dale has shown. > > > > /Hans Erik > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > > Francois Audet > > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 2:16 AM > > To: Juha Heinanen; Christer Holmberg > > Cc: sip@ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS > > Subject: Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals > > > > There are existing implementations of History-Info in the field. > > > > It's not rocket science. > > > > And I don't see why introducing something else will be simpler. It > > will just be extra complexity. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of > > > Juha Heinanen > > > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 05:48 > > > To: Christer Holmberg > > > Cc: sip@ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS > > > Subject: Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals > > > > > > Christer Holmberg writes: > > > > > > > However, I still fail to understand how Target would be more > > > "complex" > > > > than e.g. History-Info. > > > > > > christer, > > > > > > ANY solution for anything must be MUCH simpler than history-info, > > > which is far too complex by itself. > > > > > > i haven't seen anyone fully implement history-info and > most likely > > > that is because of its complexity. if you are now going > to invent > > > some other mechanism that is as complex or even more > > complex, it has > > > no change in real world. > > > > > > i therefore suggest that h-i is deprecated and a replaced > > by a simpler > > > > > mechanism. > > > > > > -- juha > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sip mailing list https://www.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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip mailing list https://www.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 > > > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
