Subject: RE: [Sip] B2BUA

From: Jiri Kuthan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:31:35 +0100

At 05:35 PM 12/3/2002, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> > [MB]: Some of this, of course, will lead us back to the
>> > list of the reasons why some folks consider these things "evil", ...
>> 
>> I do not remember whether anyone has ever said that B2BUA is evil
>> things. What I remember is that the dumping of the B2BUA functionality
>> in the name of SIP Proxy is an evil thing.
>
>The real issue in all this is security. Many security folks believe
>that, in order to get proper security, the body of the signaling
>messages should be signed, and possibly encrypted. In that logic, the
>proxies only manipulate the information exposed in the SIP header, which
>can be as little as the pair of source and destination URL.
>
>Any intermediary that attempts to "rewrite the SDP" has to somehow
>insert itself in the end-to-end security exchange; many security folks
>will resent that as "breaking end-to-end security". Insofar as SDP
>rewriting attempts to provide a legitimate service, the challenge is
>thus to provide the service in such a way that it does not require
>breaking end-to-end encryption.
>
>-- Christian Huitema

I think there are more issues with B2BUA. A B2BUA's failure affects all
current calls :-(

-Jiri 

_______________________________________________
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