Subject: [Sip] draft-elwell-sip-e2e-identity-important-02

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:26:24 +0000

substantial additions, including:
- Additions to the Introduction section on the meaning of a user
identifier.
- New section 2 on terminology (end-to-end, end-to-end identification,
etc.)
- Some small additions on connected identification.
- Brief discussion on sip-certs, as it relates to this problem.
- Brief discussion of the principle of return routability checks, with
particular reference to the DERIVE draft.
- New section 7 on why B2BUAs break SIP Identity signatures, with
reference to a couple of drafts from Hadriel.
- Changes to the conclusions section.
- New placeholder for requirements (to be populated).

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-elwell-sip-e2e-identity-import
ant-02.txt

The design team is continuing to work on this topic, in particular to
identify requirements. So any feedback on the problem statement is
needed as soon as possible.

John

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.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: "hanifa.mohammed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:49:59 +0530

Hi,

1. Only one INVITE request may be pending within a dialog.  Else, 491 will 
be sent.
2. Only one non-INVITE request may be pending within a dialog (in one 
direction): it is not possible to send UPDATE if no final response has been 
received to PRACK.

Pl clarify whether the above points are right. Esp, the second point.

Thanks
Mohammed