Hi John,
Well that is simple one would use different tags for different type of
entries, like in the example I already gave:
H-I: Bfreephone; "istarget",\
B,"aor"\
contact-B
Where the UAS interested in the initial target with which it was addressed
it would obtain the "istarget" tagged entry.
Where the UAS interested in the AOR that was used to address it would
obtain the "aor" tagged entry.
In simpler cases it could be that one entry holds the "aor" as well as the
"istarget" tag.
Of course the algorithm needs some work to make it complete.
/Hans Erik van Elburg
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Elwell, John <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hans Erik,
>
> Following your detailed description, it seems that the UAS serving a
> freephone number could receive one of the following (assuming H-I is
> supported by all relevant nodes):
>
> 1) H-I containing:
> - the freephone number (tagged);
> - the AoR (tagged);
> - the contact URI (not tagged).
>
> Or
>
> 2) H-I containing:
> - the freephone number (tagged);
> - the contact URI (not tagged).
>
> The latter would occur when the same proxy translates the freephone
> number (via the AoR) to the contact directly.
>
> So how does this help the UAS to figure out the freephone number? It
> seems the UAS would have to search back through the tagged entries
> looking for one that matches a freephone number it recognises? Does the
> tagging really add much value?
>
> John
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Hans Erik van Elburg
> Sent: 12 March 2009 21:26
> To: Mary Barnes
> Cc: Hans Erik van Elburg; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Issue 3 - two tags (was RE:
> I-DACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt
>
>
> Inline...
>
> /Hans Erik van Elburg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Mary Barnes
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I think there is another solution proposal that we
> should pursue for issue 3 identified in the email summary sent by Shida
> earlier this week - I've snipped all the text except for that issue and
> issue 2 in the summary below. I do think the discussion has confounded
> the two issues and I think it ought to be clarified that if we agree to
> the two tags per issue 3, that the options for the terminology MUST
> change. And, perhaps this is why the other discussion threads aren't
> progressing well.
>
>
> Agree.
>
>
>
> So, Hans Erick, I would like clarification on as to your
> view on the solution:
>
> In general, ISTM that one of the issues we're having in
> this terminology thread is that you are considering the solution to be
> that the hi-entries are tagged as they
> are added to the request. And, just for clarification
> from my perspective, that is NOT the solution in either 4244bis or
> target-uri.
>
>
> The principle should be that the node that has the information
> about what type of rewrite is performed should add the tag. (This is
> done by the current target-uri draft allthough the solution is not
> complete.)
>
> For the freephone service, that would be the freephone service.
> For the AOR that is the home proxy.
>
> Assume that the freephone service receives an INVITE request
> that either
> 1. received request contains History-Info header that contains
> the freephone number (as in R-URI) as last entry, THEN when rewriting
> the Request-URI it has to tag that existing received entry AND add the
> new entry with the new value of the Request-URI. (I think that was how
> History-Info works right.)
> 2. received request contains History-Info header that does not
> contain the freephone number as last entry, THEN when rewriting the
> Request-URI it has add an entry with the freephone number and tag that
> entry AND add the new entry with the new value of the Request-URI.
> 3. received request does not contain a History-Info header, THEN
> when rewriting the Request-URI it has to add an entry with the freephone
> number and tag that entry AND add the new entry with the new value of
> the Request-URI.
>
> After forwarding this request it arrives at the home proxy:
> 1. received request contains History-Info header that contains
> the AOR (as in R-URI) as last entry, THEN when rewriting the Request-URI
> it has to tag that existing received entry AND add the new entry with
> the new value of the Request-URI i.e. the registered contact. (I think
> that was how History-Info works right.)
> 2. received request contains History-Info header that does not
> contain the AOR (as in R-URI) as last entry, THEN when rewriting the
> Request-URI it has add an entry with the AOR and tag that entry AND add
> the new entry with the new value of the Request-URI i.e. the registered
> contact.
> 3. received request does not contain a History-Info header, THEN
> when rewriting the Request-URI it has to add an entry with the AOR as in
> the Request-URI and tag that entry AND add the new entry with the new
> value of the Request-URI i.e. the registered contact..
>
>
> I don't view it as a problem necessarily if you'd like
> to pursue an alternate solution, we just need to be clear that's what
> you're advocating. In that case, I would agree the "retarget" is not an
> appropriate tag for the entries, as you don't know at the point in time
> that you add an hi-entry that it will be retargeted. In the case of this
> approach to the solution, you do have to alter the mechanism for
> determining the hi-entry that your services would want to use. You would
> need to skip the most recent/last hi-entry (as that would contain the
> same as the Request-URI in the incoming request), since it would be
> tagged if you use this solution approach.
>
>
> Yes, but only if the previous proxy added it. As History-Info is
> optional one never knows really.
>
>
>
> Thus, you'd have to take the next hi-entry that you find
> that has the desired "tag". I will posit that we could accomplish this
> solution without any changes to 4244 by just registering new SIP URI
> parameter(s). And, that's not to say we shouldn't do a 4244bis as
> there are other issues to address in that document, but that allows the
> target-uri to describe a solution that makes use of 4244bis "as is".
>
>
>
> Are you proposing to decouple the target-uri and the 4244bis
> discussion?
>
>
> So, feedback on this specific point (from Hans Erik and
> others) would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Mary.
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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
