I don't know of any implementation of RFC 4458.

On Nov15 2008 17:45 , "Keith DRAGE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> And what would be your analysis of any backwards compatibility issues?
> 
> regards
> 
> Keith
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Francois Audet
>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:44 PM
>> To: Shida Schubert; Jonathan Rosenberg
>> Cc: [email protected]; Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)
>> Subject: Re: [Sip]
>> draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-00.txt:P-Called-Party-ID
>> 
>> 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
>> 

_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to