Re: [Sip] B2BUA question.

[Bert Culpepper <bertculpepper@netscape.net>]

Hi,

I'll provide my opinion on why this term was included in RFC3261, other 
folks may provide different/better reasons.

The previous RFC defined UAC, UAS, Registar, Proxy, and Redirect Server 
logical entities.  As services (both legacy and new) were designed using 
SIP, it was determined that a combination of defined logical entities 
was needed to implement the services and still be compliant with the 
specification.  This particular combination became common enough that (I 
presume) the authors thought it should be mentioned in the new RFC, to 
avoid mis-interpretation.

Regards,
Bert

Padhye, Chinmay wrote:

> Hello,
>
>     This is from the definition of B2BUA from RFC 3261 -
>
>     'Since it is a concatenation of a UAC and UAS, no explicit definitions are needed for its behavior."
>     
>     Since the behavior of a B2BUA is the same as the behavior of a UAC/UAS, what was the need for defining a new logical entity - B2BUA? I am trying to understand the motivation behind adding this definition in the RFC.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chinmay
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip