Subject: RE: [Sip] Close of Expert Review on draft-willis-sip-svcrtdisco-0 5?

From: Tan Ya-Ching ICM N PG U ID A 1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:03:15 +0200

Hi,

I hope this is not too late...

Comments :

- 6.1 "If the UA refreshes the registration, the stored value of the
P-Service-Route is updated according to the P-Service-Route header field of
the latest 200 OK response".  What happens if the re-registration gets
negative response, or if the registration state expires? Should the UA clear
the stored service route or should it still keeps the one from the latest
200 OK response?

- 6.3 3rd paragraph "A REGISTER operation performing a Fetching Bindings
SHOULD return the same value of P-Service-Route as returned in the
corresponding previous REGISTER response for the address-of-record in
question". I thought the whole idea is to avoid storing lookup tables in the
home network (point 3 of Section 2). I would assume that the registrar
generates a service route for the registering UA (be it a real registration
or just a fetch) dynamically, based on its knowledge about the topology of
the home network at that moment. So it cannot guarantee that the
P-Service-Route calculated now has the same value as the one returned in the
previous REGISTER response.

Nits:

- 6.1 "The UA performs a register as usual . The register response..." =>
"The UA registers an address-of-record as usual. The REGISTER response..."

- In the examples, 200 OK to REGISTER should have To tags according to RFC
3261.

Regards,
Ya-Ching

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 09:46:12 -0500

Thanks, will incorporate.

I believe the procedure we're going to use is that I'll send the revised
draft to the transport ADs and ask them to get it onto the IESG agenda.
This probably points to  a slight need for clarification in the SIP
Change Process draft.

So, one more rev before IESG. I'll incorporate any reasonable feedback
received by 1400 USCST today.

--
Dean

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tan Ya-Ching ICM N PG U ID A 1" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Dean Willis'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 4:03 AM
Subject: RE: [Sip] Close of Expert Review on
draft-willis-sip-svcrtdisco-05?

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:19:17 -0500

Ya-Ching wrote:
> - 6.1 "If the UA refreshes the registration, the stored value 
> of the P-Service-Route is updated according to the 
> P-Service-Route header field of the latest 200 OK response".  
> What happens if the re-registration gets negative response, 
> or if the registration state expires? Should the UA clear the 
> stored service route or should it still keeps the one from 
> the latest 200 OK response?

I suspect that the UA clears the stored route in a negative response
case. It's kind of an open question what to do in the event of an
expiration. We can add some text to this point.

> 
> - 6.3 3rd paragraph "A REGISTER operation performing a 
> Fetching Bindings SHOULD return the same value of 
> P-Service-Route as returned in the corresponding previous 
> REGISTER response for the address-of-record in question". I 
> thought the whole idea is to avoid storing lookup tables in 
> the home network (point 3 of Section 2). I would assume that 
> the registrar generates a service route for the registering 
> UA (be it a real registration or just a fetch) dynamically, 
> based on its knowledge about the topology of the home network 
> at that moment. So it cannot guarantee that the 
> P-Service-Route calculated now has the same value as the one 
> returned in the previous REGISTER response.

That's a really good point. A lot depends on the manner in which the
P-Service-Route is constructed. It may in some cases be constructed from
Path data. So I'd say that the registrar returns the "current" service
route, whatever that is. I will so annotate.

> 
> Nits:
> 
> - 6.1 "The UA performs a register as usual . The register 
> response..." => "The UA registers an address-of-record as 
> usual. The REGISTER response..."

Yep.

> - In the examples, 200 OK to REGISTER should have To tags 
> according to RFC 3261.

Yep. Of course, 3261 is inconsistent in its use of To tags. I think the
whole tagging/branchid thing was a bad class of ideas, but I promised
not to suggest we deprecate forking any more. . .
 
Thanks for the feedback. It looks like one more rev . . .

--
Dean