Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-asserted-identity-01

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:12:55 +0300

it is very frustrating that the authors of
draft-ietf-sip-asserted-identity-01 don't take any of the comments in
account that they themselves don't like when they issue new revisions of
their draft.  this would be ok if they would publish a private draft,
but we are talking about a wg draft here.

several people agreed with me that the word "hint" is not good and it
was suggested to use the term "requested identity".  also, there was a
proposal to include a parameter to tell what the network must do in case
it doesn't like the requested identity.

finally, even if you, against the opinion of several people, decide to
publish the asserted identity as an informational p header document,
because you expect someone at some later day to publish the real thing,
i don't see how how that argument would apply to requested identity over
the ua-proxy interface.  requested identity is as complete as it gets.

so at minimum the requested identity header MUST be a non p header.
that is by the way also a very good reason to use another name for the
ua-proxy header.

-- juha

_______________________________________________
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: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:42:31 -0700

I apologize for the frustration, I should have sent an email out to the list
on these topics.

Jon, Mark and I have been going around trying to figure out what the
consensus is on the 'hint' single header vs. two header issue. It is not
clear to me exactly what the consensus is.  Even if the consensus was clear,
none of us had time to get it correctly written up for the 01 draft.
Anyways, long and short is, it was not in 01 draft due to lack of time but
it is not clear to me what exactly needs to be done next here.

The other issue of "To P or not to P" has been addressed several times on
the list - I see it as not being an issue for the sip-asserted-identity
draft but as an issue for draft-tsvarea-sipchange.

Sorry for the frustration, Cullen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:13 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-asserted-identity-01
>
>