Subject: RE: [Sip] Open Issue #188: Reply-To

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:32:45 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 2:11 AM
> To: Jonathan Rosenberg
> Cc: [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Open Issue #188: Reply-To
> 
> > Proposal:
> > 
> > Its simple. Its compatible. Its well understood. Its going 
> to really be
> > needed for MESSAGE, probably other things. Let us take the 
> simple route and
> > add it.
> 
> While I have no problem in adding this, we need to ensure 
> that the spec
> is
> clear on what to do if both Contact and Reply-To are present 
> along with
> R-R headers.  In creating a Route set, the Reply-To will take
> precedence,
> I presume.

NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!

No relationship between Reply-To, Contact, RR, Route. Everything with
COntact, Route, RR is as it is today. All Reply-To is for is for handling
cases where you want to call the person back next week, what URL to you use
for the initial INVITE you send to them? Right now, it would be the From
field, but as the example above suggests, that is not always what you want.
When present, Reply-To would be used for this purpose.

-Jonathan R.
---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://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