Subject: Re: Basic problem with caller/callee asymmetry for telephony??

From: "Scott Petrack"<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:50:31 +0200

SCOTT PETRACK @
                                 VOCALTEC
                             05/08/98 06:50 PM
               (Embedded image moved to file: PIC11405.PCX)

This is getting silly. The text you cite is not in
draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-05.txt.

Please post a definitive URL for the most current draft, and please post to
the list whenever a change is made to it.

Scott

[email-masked] on 05/07/98 09:34:27 PM

Please respond to [email-masked]

To:   [email-masked]
cc:   Scott Petrack, [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: Basic problem with caller/callee asymmetry for telephony??

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> <...>
>
> One disadvantage to doing it this way is that this reverse direction
> transaction will need to flow through the vocaltec.com SIP server. Had a
> Location: field been included in the original forward request, and first
> reverse request could go directly to the final server. Of course, as the
> response to the reverse request will contain a Location: field,
> subsequent reverse requests can do directly. Thus, I see this
> disadvantage as relatively minor.
>
In fact, draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-05.ps says that the original "forward"
INVITE may contain the Location field so this is not an issue (6.20):
   INVITE and  ACK requests MAY also contain  Location headers
   indicating the location the request is originating from.
        This allows the callee to send a  BYE directly to the
        caller instead of through a series of proxies. The  Via
        header is not sufficient since the desired address may be
        that of a proxy.
---
Igor Slepchin

---

From: Igor Slepchin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 12:17:23 -0400

The draft I cited is at
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/sip/draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-05.txt.

In fact, I just realized that PostScript and PDF versions of this draft
(available as draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-05.ps and
draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-05.pdf from the same site) are newer than the text
version (April 26 instead of April 9 for .txt file). However, all three
of them contain the cited text (it was moved to section 6.25 in newer
version, which contains a number of other additions).

---
Igor Slepchin