RE: [Sip] B2BUA & Max-Forwards

[Adam Roach <adam@dynamicsoft.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Reynolds [mailto:preynolds@ridgewaysystems.com]

> Now your back to restricting what I can and can't do in an
> intermediary. It can't be a B2BUA 'cos it doesn't need to
> honour require headers (the UA at the other end does that,
> if they were meant for my intermediary then they would be
> proxy-require?), and it can't be a proxy 'cos of the rules
> about not changing the body so what is it?

Broken.

The restrictions placed on nodes by 3261 (which I'm merely
reiterating, not imposing) aren't an authoritarian attempt
at unnecessary proscription. They serve a purpose.

I'll describe one of the (several) purposes that applies
to the situation you propose.

One of the things that UAs are required to be able to do is
sign and/or encrypt the bodies and/or some subset of the
headers to ensure confidentiality and/or integrity. The
protocol places restrictions on various nodes to ensure
that this can be done. Your box is broken precisely because
it interferes with these abilities (or, more precisely,
these abilities interfere with it).

/a
_______________________________________________
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