Subject: RE: [Sip] i18n issue: composed characters

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:37:47 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> I am surprised that the method of canonicalization is not 
> addressed by 
> Unicode. After all, don't they specify rules for equality 
> checking (that 
> is, after all, what we are after, just using canonicalization for 
> equality checking)? Don't those rules include such encoding 
> variations? 
> I'm not a unicode expert, but this seems like a very basic issue.

I think my phrasing must have been a bit confusing.

Unicode *definitely* specifies canonicalization. In fact, they
care so much about it, they specified *two* ways to do it.

We need to pick one of these methods.

I probably confused the issue unnecessarily by throwing in a
reference to a proposal for two *other* ways to do it that
never seemed to get off the ground (at least, as far as I can
tell).

/a
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 02:39:30 -0500

> We need to pick one of these methods.

 From a skim of the relevant sections of Unicode, it wasn't clear to me 
which one was appropriate for us.  Anyone have an informed opinion?

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: Prasanna Venkatesh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:51:25 +0530

Hi,
	Are there any specific scenarios where more than one request (from the same
UA) having the same call-id is received by an UAC before it has sent out an
100 for the first request.  The message may be of different dialogs and
transactions.
	Overlap dialling is one such scenario, are there any other known scenarios
like this?

Regards,
Prasanna

---

From: "Ravi Shiroor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:35:41 +0530

Even in overlapped dialing scenario, the UAC wouldnt(shouldnt)
be sending out a new INVITE before it receives a 484 OR before
it CENCELs the last sent Invite.

(else, it cant make sure that the (N)th INVITE reaches only after
(N-1)th has reached the UAS)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Prasanna Venkatesh
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 1:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Sip] different messages with same call-id before 100 is sent
out

Hi,

Regards,
Prasanna

---

From: Prasanna Venkatesh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:36:12 +0530

I agree with your idea that there should be a way by which it should be
ensured that the Nth INVITE reaches after the (N-1)th INVITE, but it is also
mandatory according to the overlapped dialing draft that CANCEL is sent
after the Nth INVITE is sent, in fact the CANCEL should be sent only after a
200 is received for one of the INVITEs.
Quoting from "draft-ietf-sipping-overlap-02"

3.6 Canceling pending INVITE transactions

  When a gateway sends a new INVITE containing new digits, it should
  not CANCEL the previous INVITE transaction.
	.........
	.........
  However, once a 200 OK response has been received, the gateway should
  CANCEL all the other INVITE transactions were generated.

In any case is it valid that an overlapping INVITE is sent before a 100 is
received for the previous INVITE.

Coming back to the original question, what are the conditions that an INVITE
can be received before 100 is sent for a pending INVITE, both bearing the
same call-ids but belonging to different dialogs.

Regards,
Prasanna

-----Original Message-----
From: Ravi Shiroor [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 12:36 PM
To: Prasanna Venkatesh; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sip] different messages with same call-id before 100 is
sent out

-----Original Message-----

Hi,

Regards,
Prasanna

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:27:24 +0200

Hi,

in the overlap case we do not care if the nth INVITE reaches the other
end before the (n-1)th INVITe, so you do not have to wait for anything
before sending the new INVITE.

> same call-ids but belonging to different dialogs.

the only proposal I am aware of that uses the same Call-ID for different
dialgogs is the overlap draft. Therefore, (if we forget about overlap)
it is unlikely that you receive two INVITEs with the same Call-ID that
belong to different dialogs.

If both INVITEs come from different UACs, the Call-ID will be different,
since they typically use the something@host format.

And if both INVITEs come from the same UAC, it will make sure that the
Call-IDs are different.

Regards,

Gonzalo

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:08:43 -0500

The work of the iDNS WG is applicable here, as in 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-nameprep-11.txt and 
references (stringprep).

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>>> I am surprised that the method of canonicalization is not addressed 
>>> by Unicode. After all, don't they specify rules for equality checking 
>>> (that is, after all, what we are after, just using canonicalization 
>>> for equality checking)? Don't those rules include such encoding 
>>> variations? I'm not a unicode expert, but this seems like a very 
>>> basic issue.
>>
>>
>>