Subject: [Sipping] Feedback on draft-peterson-sipping-retarget-00.txt

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:20:42 +0200

Hi,

I am very happy to see this draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-peterson-sipping-retarget-00.txt

this is the problem we have been talking about in the transcoding 
discussions related to the use of Route entries to invoke transcoders. 
An intermediary decides to introduce a transcoder using retargeting but 
the UAC is not aware of it.

This problem also came up in discussions on the consent framework... 
somebody referred to the authorization to retarget as "reverse consent", 
to distinsguish it from the consent given by UASs to receive traffic, 
which is the one the consent-framework deals with.

In short, I believe (as an individual) that this topic is important and 
that the WG should work on it.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

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

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:42:46 -0600

> somebody referred to the authorization to retarget as "reverse 
> consent", to distinsguish it from the consent given by UASs to receive 
> traffic, which is the one the consent-framework deals with.
>
I think the "reverse consent" term was mine, should we need somebody to 
blame. I tend to think "outside the box", especially since I can no 
longer remember where I left the box at . . .

--
Dean