Subject: [Sip] comments on draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01

From: Peili Xu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:56:53 -0500

Hi Jonathan et al,

After reviewing the draft and mailing list discussion, I'd like to share my
view for your consideration.

Assuming we could group the problem statements into 3 categories: 
a) Conversion for contact binding; b) conversion for routing resolution and
c) conversion for services.

1: I'd suggest using P-Called-Party-ID to for category a) problem and loose
routing for the other 2.

2: When would proxy apply loose route after conversion for category 2/3 is
subject to local policy or Some kind of indication provided by external
conversion service. 

3: How to define a uri parameter for sub-address purpose is somewhat
independent from the draft to me.
But it's interesting. I'd suggest specifying it separately and with thorough
considerations for how to implement sub-address like services in SIP.

Best regards
Peili

_______________________________________________
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