Subject: Re: [dispatch] AD review of draft-holmberg-dispatch-iotl - Richard's comment on 'iotl' parameter selection

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:10:24 +0000

Hi Richard,

> "If, within an initial request for a dialog...identifies the type of traffic leg"
> * This section on choosing which 'iotl' parameter to use is useful.  Editorially, it would 
> be a little clearer to pull it out into bullet points, and preface with "A SIP entity determines 
> the type of traffic leg in the following way".  I would also suggest considering whether 
> putting a MUST here would be appropriate, e.g., "SIP entities that understand the 'iotl' 
> parameter MUST use the following rules to determine the type of traffic leg..."

What about the following:

   "When a SIP entity receives an initial request for a dialog, or a
   stand-alone request, which contains one or more SIP URI 'iotl'
   parameters, it identifies the type of traffic leg in the following
   way:

   o  If the SIP request contains a single Route header field containing
      a SIP URI with an 'iotl' paramter, that parameter identifies the
      type of traffic leg;

   o  If the SIP request contains multiple Route header fields
      containing a SIP URI with an 'iotl' parameter, the 'iotl'
      parameter associated with the SIP URI of the topmost Route header
      field (or, if the SIP URI of the topmost Route header field does
      not contain an 'iotl' parameter, the SIP URI of the Route header
      field closest to the topmost) identifies the type of traffic leg;
      or

   o  If a SIP request contains an 'iotl' parameter only in the Request-
      URI SIP URI, the 'iotl' parameter identifies the type of traffic
      leg."

Regards,

Christer