Re: Terminology (was RE: Fwd:I-DACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt

Hi Dean,

Yes this was exactly how we used/defined the terms at the time we where
discussing the ua-loose-route vs Target-header solutions.

I still think that this way they are most intuitive and closest to how you
would use the terms in natural language.

/Hans Erik van Elburg

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Dean Willis <[email protected]>wrote:

>
> On Mar 12, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
>  A couple of question:
>>
>> 1. Does the 4244bis definition of "retarget" cover the freephone case,
>> when the R-URI is replaced with the AoR of B - not with the contact of B -
>> no matter whether it's done based on location service, configuration or
>> whatever?
>>
>
> By the way, I believe that the way I use the words, this is a "reroute" and
> not a "retarget". In the freephone case, I would still expect the
> destination to have an awareness that it is the target of freephone calls
> and have credentials for the freephone number such that it could
> appropriately authenticate its responses if we had a means to do so.
>
>
>> 2. Related to the first question, when you say "...and thus chaning the
>> target of the request", what is the defintion of "target"?
>>
>>
>
> My definition is that a "retarget" changes the expected identity of the
> expected responder, introducing the possibility of an "unanticipated
> respondent" scenario.
>
> This is, AFAIK, very different from the 4244 terminology, which I've always
> held to be not particularly useful.
>
> --
> 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