Comparison of retargeting proposals

I've put together a comparison chart of the varous
retargeting
proposals:

			ua-loose-route	target-uri	History-Info	URI-
							 (updated)	param.

Upward-compatible	N		Y		Y		Y
with RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible	depends		Y		Y		Y
for UA?

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y		Y
intermediate proxies?

Complexity		low		low		high		low

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y		N
intermediate routing?

Multiple targets?	N		N		Y		N


The proposals are:

ua-loose-route - draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-02

target-uri - draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01

History-Info - History-Info (RFC 4244), with additional
parameters as
needed

URI-param. - a URI-parameter like the 'target' proposed in
RFC 4458


The criteria are:

Upward-compatible with RFC 3263?

If a message has no Route headers, is its destination to be
determined
from the request-URI host-port as in RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible for UA?

Is the proposal compatible with UAs that use RFC 3263 to
examine the
request-URI to determine if they are the destination of the
request.

Complexity

Multiple targets?

Does the mechanism display more than the latest retargeted
URI?


Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

Please define "complexity".

Regards,

Christer
 

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bouncesietf.org [mailto:sip-bouncesietf.org]
On Behalf Of
Dale.Worleycomcast.net
Sent: 25. maaliskuuta 2008 18:29
To: sipietf.org
Subject: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals

I've put together a comparison chart of the varous
retargeting
proposals:

			ua-loose-route	target-uri	History-Info
URI-
							 (updated)
param.

Upward-compatible	N		Y		Y
Y
with RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible	depends		Y		Y
Y
for UA?

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y
Y
intermediate proxies?

Complexity		low		low		high
low

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y
N
intermediate routing?

Multiple targets?	N		N		Y
N


The proposals are:

ua-loose-route - draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-02

target-uri - draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01

History-Info - History-Info (RFC 4244), with additional
parameters as
needed

URI-param. - a URI-parameter like the 'target' proposed in
RFC 4458


The criteria are:

Upward-compatible with RFC 3263?

If a message has no Route headers, is its destination to be
determined
from the request-URI host-port as in RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible for UA?

Is the proposal compatible with UAs that use RFC 3263 to
examine the
request-URI to determine if they are the destination of the
request.

Complexity

Multiple targets?

Does the mechanism display more than the latest retargeted
URI?


Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use
sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip Use
sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

Predictability is better criteria. Complex and predictable
is preferred,
over simple and not predictable.

Cheers,

Martin 

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bouncesietf.org [mailto:sip-bouncesietf.org]
On Behalf Of
Christer Holmberg
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:23 AM
To: Dale.Worleycomcast.net; sipietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals


Please define "complexity".

Regards,

Christer
 

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bouncesietf.org [mailto:sip-bouncesietf.org]
On Behalf Of
Dale.Worleycomcast.net
Sent: 25. maaliskuuta 2008 18:29
To: sipietf.org
Subject: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals

I've put together a comparison chart of the varous
retargeting
proposals:

			ua-loose-route	target-uri	History-Info
URI-
							 (updated)
param.

Upward-compatible	N		Y		Y
Y
with RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible	depends		Y		Y
Y
for UA?

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y
Y
intermediate proxies?

Complexity		low		low		high
low

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y
N
intermediate routing?

Multiple targets?	N		N		Y
N


The proposals are:

ua-loose-route - draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-02

target-uri - draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01

History-Info - History-Info (RFC 4244), with additional
parameters as
needed

URI-param. - a URI-parameter like the 'target' proposed in
RFC 4458


The criteria are:

Upward-compatible with RFC 3263?

If a message has no Route headers, is its destination to be
determined
from the request-URI host-port as in RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible for UA?

Is the proposal compatible with UAs that use RFC 3263 to
examine the
request-URI to determine if they are the destination of the
request.

Complexity

Multiple targets?

Does the mechanism display more than the latest retargeted
URI?


Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use
sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip Use
sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

Hi,

Another comment:

For ua-loose-route you indicate that is is upward-compatible
for
intermediate proxies/routing.

Maybe I missunderstand what you are trying to say, but one
of the main
issues (in my opinion) with the ua-loose-route mechanism is
that it DOES
need to know whether the next hop supports it or not.

Regards,

Christer 

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bouncesietf.org [mailto:sip-bouncesietf.org]
On Behalf Of
Dale.Worleycomcast.net
Sent: 25. maaliskuuta 2008 18:29
To: sipietf.org
Subject: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals

I've put together a comparison chart of the varous
retargeting
proposals:

			ua-loose-route	target-uri	History-Info
URI-
							 (updated)
param.

Upward-compatible	N		Y		Y
Y
with RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible	depends		Y		Y
Y
for UA?

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y
Y
intermediate proxies?

Complexity		low		low		high
low

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y
N
intermediate routing?

Multiple targets?	N		N		Y
N


The proposals are:

ua-loose-route - draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-02

target-uri - draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01

History-Info - History-Info (RFC 4244), with additional
parameters as
needed

URI-param. - a URI-parameter like the 'target' proposed in
RFC 4458


The criteria are:

Upward-compatible with RFC 3263?

If a message has no Route headers, is its destination to be
determined
from the request-URI host-port as in RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible for UA?

Is the proposal compatible with UAs that use RFC 3263 to
examine the
request-URI to determine if they are the destination of the
request.

Complexity

Multiple targets?

Does the mechanism display more than the latest retargeted
URI?


Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use
sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip Use
sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

Hi,

I agree with Martin.

However, I still fail to understand how Target would be more
"complex"
than e.g. History-Info. 

Regards,

Christer


-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bouncesietf.org [mailto:sip-bouncesietf.org]
On Behalf Of
DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
Sent: 29. maaliskuuta 2008 14:27
To: Christer Holmberg; Dale.Worleycomcast.net; sipietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals

Predictability is better criteria. Complex and predictable
is preferred,
over simple and not predictable.

Cheers,

Martin 

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bouncesietf.org [mailto:sip-bouncesietf.org]
On Behalf Of
Christer Holmberg
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:23 AM
To: Dale.Worleycomcast.net; sipietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals


Please define "complexity".

Regards,

Christer
 

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bouncesietf.org [mailto:sip-bouncesietf.org]
On Behalf Of
Dale.Worleycomcast.net
Sent: 25. maaliskuuta 2008 18:29
To: sipietf.org
Subject: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals

I've put together a comparison chart of the varous
retargeting
proposals:

			ua-loose-route	target-uri	History-Info
URI-
							 (updated)
param.

Upward-compatible	N		Y		Y
Y
with RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible	depends		Y		Y
Y
for UA?

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y
Y
intermediate proxies?

Complexity		low		low		high
low

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y
N
intermediate routing?

Multiple targets?	N		N		Y
N


The proposals are:

ua-loose-route - draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-02

target-uri - draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01

History-Info - History-Info (RFC 4244), with additional
parameters as
needed

URI-param. - a URI-parameter like the 'target' proposed in
RFC 4458


The criteria are:

Upward-compatible with RFC 3263?

If a message has no Route headers, is its destination to be
determined
from the request-URI host-port as in RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible for UA?

Is the proposal compatible with UAs that use RFC 3263 to
examine the
request-URI to determine if they are the destination of the
request.

Complexity

Multiple targets?

Does the mechanism display more than the latest retargeted
URI?


Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use
sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip Use
sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use
sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip Use
sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use
sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip Use
sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

Christer Holmberg writes:

 > However, I still fail to understand how Target would
be more "complex"
 > than e.g. History-Info. 

christer,

ANY solution for anything must be MUCH simpler than
history-info, which
is far too complex by itself.

i haven't seen anyone fully implement history-info and most
likely that
is because of its complexity.  if you are now going to
invent some other
mechanism that is as complex or even more complex, it has no
change in
real world.

i therefore suggest that h-i is deprecated and a replaced by
a simpler
mechanism.

-- juha
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

Christer Holmberg wrote:
> However, I still fail to understand how Target would be
more "complex"
> than e.g. History-Info. 

Christer, I'm not sure your mail client displays Dale's
table correctly.
 Complexity is "low" for all proposals but
History-Info, for which, in
fact, is set to "high".

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico
------------------------------------------------------------
--------

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the
persons above and may contain confidential information. If
you have received the message in error, be informed that any
use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it
immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you
have any questions, please contact us by replying to
webmastertelecomitalia.it.

        Thank you

                                       
www.telecomitalia.it

------------------------------------------------------------
--------
                        
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

Hi Juha,

It's nice to see that you're still around 

>>However, I still fail to understand how Target would
be more "complex"
than e.g. History-Info. 
>
>christer,
>
>ANY solution for anything must be MUCH simpler than
history-info, which
is far too complex by itself.

Yes, and I personally think that Target IS simpler than
History-Info.

>i haven't seen anyone fully implement history-info and
most likely that
is because of its complexity.  if you are now 
>going to invent some other mechanism that is as complex
or even more
complex, it has no change in real world.

Well, if people think Target is complex I sure would like to
hear the
reasons. That is why I asked Dale what he means by
"complexity", when he
indicates that Target is complex but History-Info isn't...

>i therefore suggest that h-i is deprecated and a
replaced by a simpler
mechanism.

I do think it is important to remember that Target is not
meant as a
History-Info replacement in general.

Regards,

Christer

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

Hi, 

>>However, I still fail to understand how Target would
be more "complex"
than e.g. History-Info. 
>
>Christer, I'm not sure your mail client displays Dale's
table
correctly.
>Complexity is "low" for all proposals but
History-Info, for which, in
fact, is set to "high".

Oooh... if that is the case then Outlook IS playing me a
trick, and I
would like to appologize and withdraw my comment 

Regards,

Christer
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

Hello,

Loose route is a POS,,,, not predictable. Target-URI is
preferred.

Martin 

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bouncesietf.org [mailto:sip-bouncesietf.org]
On Behalf Of
Christer Holmberg
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:30 AM
To: Dale.Worleycomcast.net; sipietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals


Hi,

Another comment:

For ua-loose-route you indicate that is is upward-compatible
for
intermediate proxies/routing.

Maybe I missunderstand what you are trying to say, but one
of the main
issues (in my opinion) with the ua-loose-route mechanism is
that it DOES
need to know whether the next hop supports it or not.

Regards,

Christer 

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bouncesietf.org [mailto:sip-bouncesietf.org]
On Behalf Of
Dale.Worleycomcast.net
Sent: 25. maaliskuuta 2008 18:29
To: sipietf.org
Subject: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals

I've put together a comparison chart of the varous
retargeting
proposals:

			ua-loose-route	target-uri	History-Info
URI-
							 (updated)
param.

Upward-compatible	N		Y		Y
Y
with RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible	depends		Y		Y
Y
for UA?

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y
Y
intermediate proxies?

Complexity		low		low		high
low

Upward-compatible for	Y		Y		Y
N
intermediate routing?

Multiple targets?	N		N		Y
N


The proposals are:

ua-loose-route - draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-02

target-uri - draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01

History-Info - History-Info (RFC 4244), with additional
parameters as
needed

URI-param. - a URI-parameter like the 'target' proposed in
RFC 4458


The criteria are:

Upward-compatible with RFC 3263?

If a message has no Route headers, is its destination to be
determined
from the request-URI host-port as in RFC 3263?

Upward-compatible for UA?

Is the proposal compatible with UAs that use RFC 3263 to
examine the
request-URI to determine if they are the destination of the
request.

Complexity

Multiple targets?

Does the mechanism display more than the latest retargeted
URI?


Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use
sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip Use
sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www
.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip