Subject: [Sip] Revised Path draft submitted

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:19:51 -0500

I incorporated a few dozen suggested corrections into the Path draft. It
has been submitted to the internet-drafts queue and should appear there
shortly. In the interim, it should be available in the following
locations:

http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-willis-sip-path-03.txt

http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-willis-sip-path-03.html

http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-willis-sip-path-03.xml

If you have extensive edits to suggest, please make them relative to the
xml file. I'm using the xml2rfc package as a formatter, so this is the
"source code".

Note that the header is still called "Path". The suggested
"Register-Record-Route" was just too long and nobody really cheered for
my suggestion, "RRR". The topic is still open.

Main changes were ordering the Path elements in the same direction as
Record-Route elements (they were apparently backward) and cleanup of
typos. As requested by Miguel, I did a "Table 2" addition. The
references have also been divided into normative and non-normative
sections as currently required.

Enjoy.

--
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: Tan Ya-Ching ICM N PG U ID A 1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 10:30:49 +0200

Some comments on draft-willis-sip-path-03 :

The draft states that any proxy processing a REGISTER request can add its
own URI or a Path element referencing another node to the REGISTER message.
For the response to the REGISTER, it states that "The registrar reflects the
accumulated Path back into the REGISTER response, and intermediate nodes
propogate this back toward the originating UA". There is no mention of how a
proxy can add or modify the Path headers in the response. But in the
addition of Path to SIP Table 2, the Path in 2xx is marked as "amr", where a
= add and m = modify. Is this a typo ?

The Path header is supposed to have a "syntax very similar to the
Record-Route header". SIP bis-09 states that "The URI placed in the
Record-Route header field value MUST be a SIP URI. This URI  MUST contain an
lr parameter". I think this should be a requirement for the Path header too
and should be mentioned in the draft.

Two minor side comments :

- The addition of Path to SIP Table 2 should be to Table 3 instead. Table 3
is for header fields starting with P-Z.

- Path header should be added to Table 1 of bis-09 too.

- In the example message flow, the ordering of the two Path elements in F6
should be reversed.

-------
Ya-Ching Tan