Subject: [Sipping] ack request uri in Basic Call Flow Examples

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:10:15 +0300

in example 3.1 alice invites bob with contact

Contact: <sip:[email-masked];transport=tcp> 

when bob acks the invite, it uses the following request uri:

ACK sip:[email-masked] SIP/2.0

shoudn't request uri contain the remote target uri from the contact?

at least it is so in the bye:

BYE sip:[email-masked] SIP/2.0

sent by bob and and also in ack of example 3.2:

ACK sip:[email-masked]

-- juha

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

---

From: Srikanth Sundaragopalan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:55:14 -0400 (EDT)

Reply Inline

Srikanth Sundaragopalan
Graduate Student
College of Computing
Georgia Tech

> ACK sip:[email-masked] SIP/2.0

ACK is not sent by bob.It is sent by Alice and hence the R-URI is perfect.

> BYE sip:[email-masked] SIP/2.0

BYE is sent by bob,hence it has alice contact.

> ACK sip:[email-masked]

Same here..

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:31:36 +0300

> ACK is not sent by bob.It is sent by Alice and hence the R-URI is

yes, ack is sent by alice.  my typo.  however, i still think that
request uri in the ack is incorrect.  when alice receives ok from bob to
her invite, remote target uri of the dialog at alice (uac) is set to
contact uri:

12.1.2 UAC Behavior

The remote target MUST be set to the URI from the Contact header field
of the response.

in the example this is:

sip:[email-masked]

now alice goes on and sends ack, which in the example has this request
uri:

since there was no rr'ing proxy on the path between alice and bob, route
set at alice is empty and this applies:

12.2.1 UAC Behavior

If the route set is empty, the UAC MUST place the remote target URI into
the Request-URI.

thus i still think that the ruri in the ack is incorrect.

-- juha

---

From: Srikanth Sundaragopalan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:55:54 -0400 (EDT)

Yes,you are right.It should have been sip:[email-masked].
Dint notice "clinet" in the contact address.

regds
Srikanth Sundaragopalan
Graduate Student
College of Computing
Georgia Tech

---

From: Alan Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:55:55 -0500

>thus i still think that the ruri in the ack is incorrect.

Juha,

You are correct - the Request-URI for this ACK should be 
sip:[email-masked].  I will fix this in the authors 48 
hours.  I think the rest of the ACKs in the document have the correct 
Request-URIs.

Thanks,
Alan.

---

From: Avshalom Houri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:50:42 +0200

Following conferencing drafts appeared. I wonder what should be now the 
relationship between
the work in SIPPING  and XCON regarding conferencing.
I had the impression that the work is moving to XCON. Was it a false 
impression?

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-conference-package-02.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-cc-conferencing-02.txt

Thanks
Avshalom

---

From: Alan Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:24:05 -0600

Hi Avshalom,

Your impression was false.

The SIP-specific conferencing work will remain in the SIP and SIPPING WGs - 
this includes the listed drafts plus the framework document and the 
definition of the "isfocus" feature tag.

All the policy work (media and conference) plus floor control is what will 
be covered in XCON.

Thanks,
Alan Johnston
XCON co-chair