Subject: [Sip] new draft on Record-Route

From: Froment Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:37:11 +0100

Hi,
I would like to introduce the new draft we submitted at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-froment-sip-record-route-fix-00.txt 

This draft has actually two goals:
- The first one is to formally suggest the use of the double 
Record-Route technique as a replacement (or possibly an alternative, but 
a consensus on replacement seems possible) to the current RFC3261 text, 
which only  describes Record-Route rewriting solution.

- Another one is to summarize the interoperability issues (and even the 
"official" bugs identified at http://bugs.sipit.net) related to Record-Route
that have been identified by multiple  people in developers's community.
For some of them, this is not really a "bug" in RFC, but this is, at 
least, something that should be clarified; for instance, difference 
between the case where
proxy put an IP address, and the case where it puts its logical name, 
and consequences on multi-homed and transport switching, could be clarified.
I would like to apologize if the example on "transport switching" 
currently does not separate clearly enough "what is a bug" and "what is 
consequence of bad implementations"... It will be improved on version-01 
anyway, but, waiting for your comments for a new version...

Thanks,

Thomas

_______________________________________________
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