I like this draft. It's exactly what I had in mind.
One comment however.
The name "target" is defined by this spec as a new History-Info parameter.
However, the name
"target" is also used by RFC 4458 as a SIP/SIP URI parameter.
Now, as described in RFC 4458, History-Info may capture the SIP URIs (including
that parameter),
so you would endup with the term "target" twice (for different meanings) in the
same History-Info,
which could be confusing.
Taking the example in 6.4/RFC 4458 for example, and adjusting it for
draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery would result in this:
History-Info: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone >;index=1;target,
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];\
text="Moved Temporarily">;index=1.1
<sip: [EMAIL PROTECTED];\
target=sip:+15555551002%40example.com;user=phone;\
cause=486>;index=2;target
Now, it's parsable, but slightly confusing to have both a URI parameter and a
History-Infor header
parameter that are the same in the same history header. That would argue for a
different name. (And the target in RFC 4458 is the previous target as opposed
to the current target).
However...
There is another possibility. Jonathan's draft actually make the "target" URI
parameter in 4458 redundant. The only thing that remains useful from 4458 is
then the "cause" URI parameter.
So, we could obsolete the draft (or at least just the taget parameter in 4458).
The History-Info
heade in the previous example would look like this:
History-Info: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone >;index=1;target,
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];\
text="Moved Temporarily">;index=1.1
<sip: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>;index=2;target
Comments?
_______________________________________________
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
