Subject: [Sip] Issue 2 in draft-ietf-sip-connected-identity-00.txt

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 21:21:29 +0100

The second issue concerns the fact that an UPDATE request in the backward
direction following dialog establishment can be wasted if the peer UA (the
UAC for the INVITE transaction) does not support it. It states:

      "OPEN ISSUE: If the identity has has not changed compared with the
      URI in the To header field and the UAC (for the INVITE request)
      does not support verification of an Identity header, this UPDATE
      or re-INVITE transaction would fulfil no useful purpose.  However,
      the UAS (for the INVITE transaction) does not know this.  In order
      to save this round trip, should we have an additional option tag
      to indicate support for receipt of the Identity header on mid-
      dialog requests?  Then if this option tag is not present in the
      INVITE request the additional transaction could be omitted.  Note
      that the id-change option tag does not seem appropriate for this
      purpose, since a UA could support a change of URI without
      supporting Identity."

Whilst I do not wish to proliferate option tags, I do see some benefit in
such a tag. Any opinions?

John

_______________________________________________
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