Subject: [Sip] Addressing the maxforwards issue (SIP work)

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:21:09 -0600

Based on discussions in Vancouver and on list afterwards, we've split  
the
issues and solutions around problems with max-forwards (specifically,  
the
ease of building an amplifying loop in forking proxies) among a few  
drafts.

The first order solution discussed so far is in
http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-00.txt
http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-00.html
(until it appears in the repository)

The discussion around max-breadth has been removed to a separate
draft and refined. Look for it in sipping.

The proposed mechanism for returning more information has also been
pulled into a separate draft, contributed as anoter new SIP working  
group
item. Scott Lawrence is editing that document and will be introducing  
it in
a separate message.

Also, Dave Oran has repeatedly pointed us at more efficient loop  
detection
algorithms. There is a new individual submission exploring this  
showing up
in the SIPPING working group.

RjS

_______________________________________________
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: Scott Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:48:20 -0500

> item. Scott Lawrence is editing that document and will be

That draft has also been submitted, and is available now at:

http://scm.sipfoundry.org/rep/ietf-drafts/lawrence/hopcopy/draft-ietf-sip-hop-limit-diagnostics-00.html
http://scm.sipfoundry.org/rep/ietf-drafts/lawrence/hopcopy/draft-ietf-sip-hop-limit-diagnostics-00.txt

-- 
Scott Lawrence  tel:+1-781-938-5306;ext=162 or sip:[email-masked]
  Consulting Engineer - Pingtel Corp.  http://www.pingtel.com/
  sipXpbx project coordinator - SIPfoundry  http://www.sipfoundry.org/sipX

---

From: Hans Persson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:09:40 +0100

tor 2006-03-02 klockan 09:48 -0500 skrev Scott Lawrence:

> > group item.

I think this looks like a good idea.

In section 2, it says "When a SIP User Agent receives a request whose
Max-Forwards is zero, it returns a 483 error response [...]". Surely
this should read "SIP proxy"?

I know that there are many systems where the administrator won't want
any kind of information like this (topology, etc) to leak outside the
enterprise perimeter, but then the requirement to add the stuff in the
body is only a SHOULD, so I have no problem with this.

Nits:

Page 2, third paragraph: remove "another" on first line.

Section 2, second paragraph: "authors" -> "authors'".

Page 7, last paragraph: "its'" -> "its".

Section 2.4: "and have explicitly" -> "and has been explicitly".

Hans

-- 
Hans Persson <[email-masked]>    Ingate - Firewalls with SIP & NAT
Ingate Systems AB  +46 13 210877   http://www.ingate.com/

Private: <[email-masked]>  http://www.lysator.liu.se/~unicorn/