RE: [Sip] SIPS question

["Sean Olson" <seancolson@yahoo.com>]

It would be awkward to deprecate "transport=TLS" if SIPS required the
entire e2e path to be TLS when used in a Route: header. And I agree that
something is really wrong if loose routing has to be disabled to support
SIPS.
We need something in between. The wording suggested should of course
take into
account the potential asymmetry between the inbound and outbound
Record-Route.

/sean

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-admin@ietf.org [mailto:sip-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rosenberg
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 12:37 PM
To: Peterson, Jon
Cc: 'Anders Kristensen'; sip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] SIPS question


I think we have lost sight of the semantics of SIPS.

To me, SIPS is a way to tell a UA that ***the entire path*** was 
hop-by-hop secured. If a UA cannot know this with certainty, and we 
support these mixed scenarios, that devalues what sips is trying to do. 
Secure on just some hops is the same is insecure, and therefore, not 
useful.

I also think it is a travesty to turn off loose routing to handle sips. 
I am not convinced this is needed or wise.

I would prefer to add words which prohibit using sips at any hop unless 
the previous was sips.

-Jonathan R.


_______________________________________________
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