Subject: [drinks] Comments on the SED implementation in spprov-01

From: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:24:34 +0200

Folks,

I've been thinking about some of the slides in yesterday's presentations
and I'm worrying about the following issues:

In http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-03,
we have (in figure 3) the following items as members of a DG:

RN
TN (ranges)
PI (email??)

Given Nick's presentation, I think that we really need to support SIP URIs
as PI, and not just numbers.

As mentioned a few times, email is IMHO not something you will ever query
for, if ever it is something you get out as an attribute of some other object.

Now to the SPProv slides. In
http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/78/slides/drinks-5.pptx we have on slide 2 the
email again at the same level as RN/TN. Please change that to SIP uri.

If we need to support uri-based dialing, then the SED = Route-Object cannot
be restricted to NAPTRs. Looking at slide 3, it looks like there can be
other info as the route. Good. I missed that yesterday, but having a look
the draft, there is really support for more in there.

But how does this actually work?

For number-based dialing, assuming ENUM as the query protocol, I can see
how NAPTR and NS can work.

I'm a bit a loss how to interpret the URI subtype of the Route-Object. Is
this a SIP next-hop specification (re-routing), or a replacement for the
request-URI (re-target)? Can someone help me here, e.g. provide an example
for URI-based dialing?

(AFAIK we don't have a suitable resolution protcol for that case, as ENUM
won't work there. Any ideas on what we might use?)

otmar
-- 
// Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933 //