Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt

On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:13 AM, Shida Schubert wrote:

>
>       One reason this is so difficult relates to the problem  
> statement in target-uri in that
>       RFC 3261 doesn't differentiate the mechanism by which the new
>       (target) Request-URI is selected.  Another issue is that some  
> of the terminology in
>       RFC 3261 is overloaded - e.g., "forwarding" refers both to a  
> Proxy
>       which does not have responsibility for the domain of the  
> request-URI
>       in the incoming request, thus the proxy just "forwards" the  
> request to
>       the next hop AND "forwarding" is used to describe the process  
> whereby
>       the outgoing request is built and "forwarded" to the next hop  
> at which
>       point the proxy does not know how the new request-uri was  
> selected.
>       RFC 4244 has attempted to clarify the terms and attempts to  
> use "forward"
>       in the context of the former situation and "retarget" for the  
> case whereby
>       a proxy is responsible for the domain and thus can use a  
> number of
>       mechanism to select the new target for the request - e.g., a  
> REGISTRAR,
>       configured data, etc.
>

Thanks, Shida.

I personally would not be averse to an Essential Correction that  
corrects the terminology in RFC 3261, but I suspect that will make  
many heads spin around elsewhere in the WG.

--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip