Subject: [sipcore] #8: It's not clear when a Proxy should/should-not add H-I for "internal" stuff

From: "sipcore issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:17:36 -0000

#8: It's not clear when a Proxy should/should-not add H-I for "internal" stuff
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  hkaplan@…               |       Owner:            
     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new       
 Priority:  major                   |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  rfc4244bis              |     Version:  2.0       
 Severity:  In WG Last Call         |    Keywords:            
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Section 5.1 says:
    Retargeting is an iterative process, i.e., a proxy may redirect
    "internally " more than one time.  A typical example would be a proxy
    that redirects a request first to a different user (i.e., it maps to
    a different AOR), and then forwards to a registered contact bound to
    that new AOR.  A proxy that uses such mechanism SHOULD add multiple
    hi-entry fields (e.g., [email-masked] to [email-masked] to
    [email-masked]) to provide a logical description of the retargeting
    process.

 This isn't clear enough.  Let's suppose you have an "alias", like
 [email-masked], but your real registered AoR is [email-masked].  When
 the proxy receives a request for [email-masked], it looks up the
 location service database and ultimately gets a registered contact for
 [email-masked].  In some architectures, the proxy would internally go from
 [email-masked] to [email-masked], and then to the registered contact.
 So does it add a H-I for [email-masked]?

 The answer matters - both because it impacts the use-case rules described
 in the use-cases draft, and because it means a UA will get two different
 sets of H-I entries depending on the internal implementation of the proxy
 +location-service it uses.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/trac/ticket/8>
sipcore <http://tools.ietf.org/sipcore/>

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:52:22 -0400

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of sipcore issue tracker [[email-masked]]

_______________________________________________

If the H-I is to document "How did this request get here?", intermediate targets should be listed.

Dale