Subject: [Sip] New Replaces Draft

From: Billy Biggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:37:27 -0400

Hi all,

  I submitted an updated version of the Replaces draft.  It's available
here until its announced:

  http://www.billybiggs.com/sip/draft-biggs-sip-replaces-01.txt

  The remaining open issue is the call-leg identifier we should use.
The consensus seems to be that Replaces should uniquely identify a call,
regardless of how much information that requires.

  I'm personally a huge supporter of Jonathan's proposal to simplify
call-leg identification down to callid + tags.  Depending on how things
look after this IETF, Replaces will either stay as it is or include the
full to and from verbatim.

  The changes to the draft were making tags mandatory, clarifications to
behavior (for example for unconnected calls), and some editorial
cleanups.  The next revision of this draft will appear as a SIP WG
draft.

-- 
Billy Biggs                     [email-masked]
http://www.billybiggs.com/      [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://www.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: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 15:17:52 -0400

Billy,

The examples in section 5 and 6 use a REFER/100-Trying/200-OK message flow
instead of the REFER/202-Accepted & NOTIFY/200-OK required by
draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-04.txt. Is there a reason for this?

Also, since the call leg being replaced is the one between the Transferor
and the Target, shouldn't call-id 2 be passed in the Replaces header in the
REFER and the INVITE?

I also like the proposal to simplify call leg identification.

This is question for the WG chairs, but since this extension is referred to
by draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-05.txt, shouldn't it be a WG Item?

(-:bob

Robert F. Penfield
Chief Software Architect
Acme Packet, Inc.
130 New Boston Street
Woburn, MA 01801
[email-masked]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Billy Biggs" <[email-masked]>
To: "SIP List" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Robert Sparks" <[email-masked]>; "Dean Willis"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 3:37 PM
Subject: [Sip] New Replaces Draft

---

From: Billy Biggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 16:07:20 -0400

Bob Penfield ([email-masked]):

> The examples in section 5 and 6 use a REFER/100-Trying/200-OK message
> flow instead of the REFER/202-Accepted & NOTIFY/200-OK required by

  No reason, just my poor editing skills.  I'll fix it now, and update
it in the next version.

> Also, since the call leg being replaced is the one between the
> Transferor and the Target, shouldn't call-id 2 be passed in the
> Replaces header in the REFER and the INVITE?

  Yeah, that's also broken.  Many apologies.

> This is question for the WG chairs, but since this extension is
> referred to by draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-05.txt, shouldn't it be a WG
> Item?

  It is, I belive, I just wanted to get it announced before IETF.

  Thanks,
  Billy