[SIPForum-techwg] Fw: Commented v03 - Route header

[Spencer Dawkins]

OK, so are we mentioning Path at all, or just removing all mention of the SP side?

Just trying to be clear...

Thanks,

Spencer
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bernard Aboba 
  To: blindsay at nortel.com ; spencer at wonderhamster.org ; d.hancock at cablelabs.com ; eburger at sipforum.org 
  Cc: techwg at sipforum.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:14 AM
  Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Fw: Commented v03 - Route header


  RFC 3327 isn't widely implemented enough to justify mandating support for it.  Overall, the goal of SIPConnect 1.1 should be to improve the interoperability of mainstream practices. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Fw: Commented v03 - Route header
  Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:50:57 -0400
  From: blindsay at nortel.com
  To: spencer at wonderhamster.org; bernard_aboba at hotmail.com; d.hancock at cablelabs.com; eburger at sipforum.org
  CC: techwg at sipforum.org


  Hi Spencer,

     Per some of the comments earlier on in the related thread (not shown below), I would suggest removing the PATH header as a mandatory requirement for the SP-SSE to support. 

     I believe David was arguing that the SIP-PBX still include in the SUPPORTED header in case it is needed by entities within the SP network.

     Regards
         Brian



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer at wonderhamster.org] 
    Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:35 AM
    To: Bernard Aboba; d.hancock at cablelabs.com; eburger at sipforum.org; Lindsay, Brian (CAR:AR00)
    Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
    Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] Fw: Commented v03 - Route header


    So, in this thread, we've gone from Path as a MUST for both parties, to Path as a MUST for the SIP-PBX, to removing all mention of Path (whether because it's not a MUST, or because it's not widely used)?

    Am I getting this right?

    Thanks,

    Spencer
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Bernard Aboba 
      To: d.hancock at cablelabs.com ; eburger at sipforum.org ; blindsay at nortel.com 
      Cc: techwg at sipforum.org 
      Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 3:22 PM
      Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] Fw: Commented v03 - Route header


      > But I would like SC1.1 to mandate that the SIP-PBX populate thear,
      > Supported header of the REGISTER request with "path". This would enable
      > an SP-SSE that does support this extension to use it. Hopefully this
      > isn't a burdensome requirement for the SIP-PBX, since other that putting
      > "path" in the Supported header of REGISTER, it plays no role in the use
      > of this extension.

      So far, I haven't seen widespread use of this in the traces that I've looked at. 
      Given that, I'd prefer to focus on documenting widely deployed practice, which
      appears to be both RFC 3261-compliant and relatively simple.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/attachments/20090408/65475adf/attachment.html