Subject: [Sip] Revised Path draft (-04) submitted

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:06:05 -0500

I've sent -04 into internet-drafts. In the meantime, please review from:

http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-willis-sip-path-04.txt
http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-willis-sip-path-04.html
http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-willis-sip-path-04.xml

We'll probably be calling for WGLC "very soon".

Thanks,

--
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: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:22:53 -0500

> http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-willis-sip-path-04.xml

Dean:

Some comments:

Section 1:
    "UA wishes to register with REGISTRAR. However, due to network
    topology, UA must use P1 as an "outbound proxy", and all messages
    between UA1 and REGISTRAR must also traverse P1, P2, and P3 before
            ^^^
    reaching REGISTRAR."

There isn't any UA1, only "UA".  To be consistent with Section 4.5 and
4.6, you may want to re-label "UA" in the figure to "UA1".

In the sentence,

    "Eventually, REGISTRAR or a service proxy closely related to it
    will receive a message for UA. It needs to know which proxies
    must be transited by that message in order to get back to UA..."

we are talking about *request* initiated by the REGISTRAR destined to
UA, right?  If so, can't we reword it as:

    "Eventually, REGISTRAR or a service proxy closely related to it
    will need to send a request to the UA.  It needs to know which
    proxies must be transited by that request in order to get to UA..."

Generally speaking, in many places where you use "message", I believe
you mean "requests".  If so, can we substitute the term request, since
a "message" may be a response, for instance, which will follow the
Via paths.

In Section 4.6, the requests from P1->P2 show P1 adding itself to
the Path list (initially set to null).  The branch of P1 does NOT
contain the "magic cookie" (z9hG4bK).  Likewise for P3->REGISTRAR.
Since P1 and P3 supports "lr", it is a good bet that they also support
the Via "magic cookie".  Of course, this is an obscure nit, but all the
same...

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani  vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services
Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
Naperville, Illinois 60566     Voice: +1 630 224 0216

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:47:39 -0500

Vijay wrote:
> There isn't any UA1, only "UA".  To be consistent with 
> Section 4.5 and 4.6, you may want to re-label "UA" in the 
> figure to "UA1".

Rats. Thought I fixed that one. Thanks.

> we are talking about *request* initiated by the REGISTRAR 
> destined to UA, right?  If so, can't we reword it as:
> 

Actually, I'm thinking a third party will send a request to REGISTRAR
(it's a proxy too, right) that is detined for UA. The mindset is a "home
service proxy".

> 
> Generally speaking, in many places where you use "message", I 
> believe you mean "requests".  If so, can we substitute the 
> term request, since a "message" may be a response, for 
> instance, which will follow the Via paths.

Reasonable.

> In Section 4.6, the requests from P1->P2 show P1 adding 
> itself to the Path list (initially set to null).  The branch 
> of P1 does NOT contain the "magic cookie" (z9hG4bK).  
> Likewise for P3->REGISTRAR. Since P1 and P3 supports "lr", it 
> is a good bet that they also support the Via "magic cookie".  
> Of course, this is an obscure nit, but all the same...

Good point.

Excellent feedback. Thanks!

--
Dean