Subject: Re: Hide interaction with Record-Route

From: John Hearty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:03 -0500 (CDT)

OK, so far I have seen one person (Lars) suggest Hide is useful. 
Others have questioned if it should be dropped, suggesting there are
other ways to conceal addresses.  My vote is to drop it to reduce the
complexity of SIP.  I call for those strongly in favor of keeping Hide
to speak up so we can get an idea how many people want it.

John Hearty
MCI Worldcom

> > >From the responses seen to date, it seems:
> >
> > 1. There is interest in the SIP spec support for the Hide header and
> > encrypted Via fields.
> 
> I guess silence probably signifies a lack of strong feelings. Personally
> I'd be happy to see Hide disappear. It sounds like the rules for how to
> treat this header is quickly becoming rather complicated and IMHO that's
> a good reason for dropping it, especially if we think it may not really
> be needed.

I'm also unconvinced. It seems that the same effect can be achieved by
stripping the Record-Route/Route/Contacts and re-attaching them if
needed, as I pointed out in my last mail. Lars is correct in that it is
probably more efficient (storage wise, NOT computation wise) to use the
Hiding mechanism. But, given the complexity (I'm not convinced we've
fully worked it out yet), its not clear its worth it.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       Lucent Technologies
Member of Technical Staff                   101 Crawfords Corner Rd.
High Speed Networks Research                Holmdel, NJ 07733
FAX: (732) 834-5379                         Rm. 4C-526
EMAIL: [email-masked]
URL: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen