Subject: [Sip] Revised Service Route Discovery Draft

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:15:16 -0500

I've submitted draft-willis-sip-svcrtdisco-01.txt to the Internet Drafts
queue. This version includs refinements made by Bernie Hoeneisen to my
earlier draft.

The draft should be announced shortly on ietf-announce.

In the meantime, please review:

http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-willis-sip-svcrtdisco-01.txt

or

http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-willis-sip-svcrtdisco-01.htm
l

or

http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-willis-sip-svcrtdisco-01.xml

This is a "P-header" draft addressing 3GPP's required header for
reporting a service proxy assignment in the REGISTER response.

Please review ASAP. We need to get this to IETF last call by the end of
the month if at all possible.

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
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: AC Mahendran <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:48:43 -0700

Dean:

The Record-Route headers in section 5.6 (in transactions F3 & F5) are in 
the wrong order.

Also, doesn't the "Path" header provide the same functionality as the 
"P-Service-Route" ?

thanks,
AC

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 05:33:17 -0500

Well, the return code of the Path MAY be similar to the value of
P-Service-Route. It might not. The Path is an exact subset of the
traversal path of the REGISTER request. The P-Service-Route header could
return something completely disjoint -- it just requires that the
registrar have knowledge of some serving proxy that it is "recommending"
to the

WRT the RR headers -- I think the spec is backwards. But that's just me
. . .

--
Dean