Re: Is cpim-srv document necessary at all? (Re: NAPTR and CPIM)

below

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> ...
> I disagree, for the same reasons I disagreed during the meeting.
> 
> SIP talks about how to resolve a SIP URI. SIP doesn't know anything 
> about IM URIs. So, in order to use SIP (or any other protocol - xmpp, 
> apex, etc.) to resolve an IM URI, you need to convert that URI into a 
> URI in the native protocol.
> 
> Such translation can only be done by an entity that is authoritative for 
> that domain. Thats because there are lots of ways to do the translation, 
> and its policy specific. For example, it should be possible to have:
> 
> im:[email protected] -> sip:[email protected]
> 
> only a dynamicsoft.com server can do this.

I was with you until you added in the mapping from jonathan.d.rosenberg 
to jdrosen. I see the SRV conversion as going from im:user@domain1 to 
XYZ:user@domain2, but it needs to stay away from changing user to 
anything else. That is, Jonathan's im: uri MUST be 
im:[email protected], not im:[email protected].

If he wants user name aliasing to occur, that would be a function of the 
protocol he's dealing with, not the SRV conversion.

	Tony Hansen
	[email protected]

> So, we need to get a request from the client, to the dynamicsoft.com 
> domain, containing that IM URI, so it can translate it. Thus, the 
> problem becomes this: how to find the FQDN of a server which speaks SIP 
> that can receive an IM URI. That is the purpose of the SRV draft.
> 
> The alternative is for the domain to place NAPTR records which tell the 
> client how to do the translation. I think this is way too complicated, 
> and in any case, cannot represent the range of possible translations 
> (regexp only goes so far...).




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]