Subject: Re: [Sip] B2BUA

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:19:40 +0100

William,

"Many actual B2BUAs are not "fully independent of the SIP protocol rules",
and the above definition seems to say they must be..."
The proposed definition states that User Agents MUST behave as UAC ans UAS
according to SIP rules (this MUST could be enforced in the definition).
This is SIP standard, nothing else.
All what is added is that the way of linking User Agents in a B2BUA is not
related to SIP rules, and is not subject to SIP standardisation. As Dean
pointed out in his mail, they are User Agents, they can do anything they
want to do, and we don't want to standardise their behaviour.
You can define a B2BUA whose behaviour is based on SIP rules, but this is a
special case for a specific B2BUA implementing a well defined application.
However, this cannot be generalised to any B2BUA.

Concerning your statement "there needs to be another type of SIP entity
defined for what exists in practice", my feeling is that today there are
two SIP entity types: Proxy and B2BUA, and that seems to be enough (Am I
missed something ?)

Best regards
Juan Carlos

William Marshall <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 02/12/2002 15:06:13

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   [email-masked]
cc:   [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: [Sip] B2BUA

Dean,

you wrote:
> Juan-Carlos said:
> > Back-to-Back User Agent: A SIP element being able to handle a
> > collection of "n" User Agents (behaving each one as UAC and
> > UAS, according to SIP rules), which are linked by some
> > application logic that is fully independent of the SIP protocol rules.
>
> This seems like a reasonable definition.
>

_______________________________________________
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