Subject: [Ecrit] [issue11] Referral Protocol Mechanisms

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:52:20 +0000

New submission from Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>:

Ted wrote:

We've talked in the past about the protocol providing a pointer to other LoST 
servers if it is not the appropriate responder. We need to set out the 
semantics of that (i.e., is it a "plain" referral, or does it contain any of 
the reasons for why the referral occurred).

----------
assignedto: hannes
messages: 26
nosy: ecrit, hannes
priority: critical
status: chatting
title: Referral Protocol Mechanisms

__________________________________________________
LoST Issue Tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.tschofenig.priv.at:8080/lost/issue11>
__________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:05:10 -0400

There are probably two ways to do this:

(1) The response simply contains a domain name that is then resolved in 
the same S-NAPTR fashion as before; no new URL schema is needed.

(2) We define a URL schema. However, a URL makes sense mostly if it  is 
self-sufficient, rather than just specifying the server. Just clicking 
on lost:server.example.com isn't too useful and doesn't really define a 
resource.

The reason indication seems to be orthogonal to this; a mechanism 
similar to SIP and HTTP, with numeric and textual reason codes should be 
able to address this across the spectrum of responses.