Subject: RE: [Sipping] Service Identification in SIP

From: "Andrew Allen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 18:42:42 -0500

Jonathan,

Yes I think the hard linkage with loose route should be removed. As you
say P-Called-Party-ID can provide the same functionality.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Salvatore Loreto (JO/LMF)
Cc: Andrew Allen; Paul Kyzivat; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Service Identification in SIP

one clarification in line:

Salvatore Loreto (JO/LMF) wrote:

> At same time I am also curious about the mechanism proposed by
Jonathan.
> It is an interesting proposal, but to tell you the truth, 
> at the present stage in both the proposal call-pref and Jonathan
> mechanism I can identify more or less the same number of issues that
> need a lot of discussion and work before reach a robust stage.
> For example the Jonathan proposal is based on the louse routing that
is
> something that has not yet reached a large consensus in the sip
> community, and also the re-ordering is something that need a lot of
work
> and clarification. But as I said it is an interesting proposal.

The UA loose routing is there for the following reason. Lets say user B 
publishes a presence document with PoC and telephony, and includes a 
different URI for each. When user A gets that presence document and 
invokes the PoC URI, it would be helpful for user B to know, when it got

the request, that this URI was used. Loose routing accomplishes that.

Note that the request would still contain Require, since the originating

app was PoC and will need to include Require since PoC is not backwards 
compatible.

In the absence of loose routing, an IMS endpoint could continue to use 
P-Called-Party-ID and have the same result.

So the loose routing bit is really orthogonal here to the rest of it. 
I'd be fine to reword it to point to loose route or other equivalent 
mechanisms so that there was not a direct dependency.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP