Re: re:LUF vs. LF
I can easily remove UA's and simplify it to domains. Since, you are
still confused by the definition, can you please propose some new
wording for these two terms?
IMO, this draft is being held up by these two terms.
On 1/18/08, Elwell, John <john.elwell@...> wrote:
> I think it is wrong to talk about UAs here. The existence of UAs will be
> known only within the target domain, i.e., by the that domain's
> registrar and domain proxy. A peer domain trying to route to a target
> domain just needs to know how to do that - to route to the target
> domain. It does not need to know (and indeed should not be able to find
> out) anything about UAs in the target domain. The proposed definition of
> LuF completely confuses me.
> It would also be helpful to say what is the input to the LuF. Is it just
> a telephone number (in other words, the LuF is a kind of ENUM look-up,
> resulting in a SIP URI for the target user)?
> Also, my reading of the definition of LF is that it could simply
> comprise the functionality specified in RFC 3263. I other words, it
> takes a target SIP/SIPS URI and locates a server. If this is the case,