Subject: [sipcore] Target URI and History Info bis

From: Sumit Garg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:16:39 -0700 (PDT)

It would be nice if the examples section included PSTN interworking too..

My problem:

ISUP to SIP:
Incoming redirection count is say 3.
A redirection occurs...

The new count should be?
3.1 OR 4 OR 1.1.1.1
Also, we may not have enough information to create the complete hierarchy of History-Info headers...

Similarly, how to interpret the data in SIP to ISUP scenarios?

Lack of this clarity in interworking is one reason why Diversion is in use even after all these years...

-Sumit

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:55 PM
To: Hans Erik van Elburg; Gonzalo Camarillo
Cc: SIPCORE
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Target URI and History Info bis

Just to re-iterate once more, 4244bis already contains a superset of the normative text for History-Info header from the current target-uri document.  Francois has proposed a fairly straightforward path for 4244bis that should allow us to avoid any of the hurdles and open ended debates as to History-Info issues - the known issues are quite straight-forward to solve and the issues at hand really are providing a solution for target-uri.  The idea that the target-uri document would progress much quicker than 4244bis is a red herring - in particular based on my comments that you need more changes to 4244 to support target-uri than just the new tags. 

Mary. 

Forever,
Sumit
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:21:55 -0500

Hi Sumit,

In general, we do not include ISUP I/W flows in standards track SIP
protocol documents. There are a few cases where that has been done in
Informational documents in the past, but my understanding was that the
decision was made quite some time ago that the I/W is more appropriately
defined by other SDOs.

There is nothing normative from a SIP protocol perspective for the
History-Info header in terms of what the index should be when
interworking with ISUP (or any other PSTN protocol) - other than it is
recommended to start at "1".   Also, note it is an index in the
History-Info header and not a count - you can derive the count by
looking at the tree produced by the indices in the History-Info header.
This is discussed in the
draft-mohali-draft-mohali-diversion-history-info-02, which is a more
appropriate document (or a similar document produced by another SDO) for
describing this interworking. 

Yes, you are absolutely correct that there will be a loss of information
when you interwork SIP->ISUP.  That is something identified in the
thread with regards to the
draft-mohali-draft-mohali-diversion-history-info-02:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bliss/current/msg00923.html

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Sumit Garg
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:17 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [sipcore] Target URI and History Info bis

It would be nice if the examples section included PSTN interworking
too..

My problem:

ISUP to SIP:

The new count should be?
3.1 OR 4 OR 1.1.1.1
Also, we may not have enough information to create the complete
hierarchy of History-Info headers...

Lack of this clarity in interworking is one reason why Diversion is in
use even after all these years...

-Sumit

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Mary Barnes
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:55 PM
To: Hans Erik van Elburg; Gonzalo Camarillo
Cc: SIPCORE
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Target URI and History Info bis

Just to re-iterate once more, 4244bis already contains a superset of the
normative text for History-Info header from the current target-uri
document.  Francois has proposed a fairly straightforward path for
4244bis that should allow us to avoid any of the hurdles and open ended
debates as to History-Info issues - the known issues are quite
straight-forward to solve and the issues at hand really are providing a
solution for target-uri.  The idea that the target-uri document would
progress much quicker than 4244bis is a red herring - in particular
based on my comments that you need more changes to 4244 to support
target-uri than just the new tags. 

Mary. 

Forever,
Sumit
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw

_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore