Subject: [Sip] CPIM draft referenced in draft-ietf-sip-message-06

From: "Jack W. Lix" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:36:24 -0700

Hi,

draft-ietf-sip-message-06.txt references an expired draft in reference [3],
draft-ietf-impp-cpim-02.  The text refers to this doc as containing the
address resolution rules.

My research shows this draft is expired and unavailable.

1) Where can I get this draft (or does something replace it)?

2) Why don't the SIP PROXY rules determine the next hop?

TIA,

Jack
Jack W. Lix
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
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: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:37:52 -0500

For now you can get it at 
http://www.brandenburg.com/specifications/draft-ietf-impp-cpim-02.txt

Hopefully there will be a new version soon. That draft contains rules 
for address resolution of "pres" and "im" URLs. Resolution of SIP URIs 
follow normal SIP resolution rules.

---

From: "Jack W. Lix" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:19:40 -0700

Hi,

A few comments/nits on the draft:

NIT: section 4, the second paragraph starts "All UAs" - this should be
changed to "All UAC's to avoid confusion between UAs/UAS and to hilight that
a UAC MUST receive/decode cpim when a UAS MAY send them.

COMMENT:  Why force a UAC to handle CPIM?  Frankly, I don't have it coded
(but I do have MIME coded) and don't understand it's importance (so, you get
to educate me here!).

NIT: section 9, paragraph 7: "The prohibition againt" s/b against

NIT: section 12.4, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, "should be answered" s/b
"SHOULD be answered"

Finally, I don't quite understand the Record-Route issue.  If I send a
IM-URI to an outbound proxy and it, perhaps unaware of IM issues, adds a
Record-Route, won't my address be in the Record-Route with an IM address?
Doesn't the change to loose routing move the TO field into the Record-Route
field?  I know I

Thanks for the help,

Jack
Jack W. Lix

---

From: "Jack W. Lix" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:27:59 -0700

Hi, 

Not sure if this belongs here or on sipping or simple list.  Please advise.

Section 3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence
IS: but if may be
SHOULD BE: but it may be

Cheers,

Jack

Jack W. Lix
WindRiver Systems, INC
[email-masked]