Hi Dean, Yes this was exactly how we used/defined the terms at the time we where discussing the ua-loose-route vs Target-header solutions.
I still think that this way they are most intuitive and closest to how you would use the terms in natural language. /Hans Erik van Elburg On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Dean Willis <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Mar 12, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > > A couple of question: >> >> 1. Does the 4244bis definition of "retarget" cover the freephone case, >> when the R-URI is replaced with the AoR of B - not with the contact of B - >> no matter whether it's done based on location service, configuration or >> whatever? >> > > By the way, I believe that the way I use the words, this is a "reroute" and > not a "retarget". In the freephone case, I would still expect the > destination to have an awareness that it is the target of freephone calls > and have credentials for the freephone number such that it could > appropriately authenticate its responses if we had a means to do so. > > >> 2. Related to the first question, when you say "...and thus chaning the >> target of the request", what is the defintion of "target"? >> >> > > My definition is that a "retarget" changes the expected identity of the > expected responder, introducing the possibility of an "unanticipated > respondent" scenario. > > This is, AFAIK, very different from the 4244 terminology, which I've always > held to be not particularly useful. > > -- > Dean > >
_______________________________________________ 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
