Subject: RE: [Sip] B2BUA

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:34:22 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Marshall [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> What is built instead are boxes that are close to the definition of
> proxies, but not quite.  They serve a real need in the market (and
> vendors tend to build what sells).  But due to various details, like
> looking at the attachment (a proxy-no-no) to open pinholes in 
> the firewall,
> they don't strictly qualify as proxies.
> 
> Saying there are only two types of boxes, proxies and devilish-B2BUAs,
> ignores the reality.

Right. And no one from the ISOC, IAB, IESG, or the working group is
going to show up with tanks and guns to force you to not build
these.

However, there are demonstratable cases in which these nodes break
when communicating with other nodes that follow 3261 to the letter.

Our goal is not to make protocols that kinda interoperate under some
circumstances... sorta... maybe. Our goal is to make protocols that
interoperate. Period.

So, while you might build, deploy, and sell such boxes that fail
to interoperate with fully compliant nodes under certain circumstances
(encrypted SDP, in your example), that does NOT mean that condoning
such partially-interoperable behavior would be appropriate.

In fact, the illusion of implied interoperability that would
result from codifying such partially-interoperable nodes would be
dishonest. Doing so would damage the credibility of the protocols
generated by the IETF in general, and the SIP-related working
groups in particular.

/a
_______________________________________________
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