RE: [Sip] B2BUA & Max-Forwards

["Ravi Shiroor" <rshiroor@aplion.stpn.soft.net>]

> Take, for example, the situation in which User A (at UAC(a))
> calls User B (at UAS(b)). They have a brief discussion, and
> user B decides that he wants to add User C to the call;
> using whatever interface is available, User B instructs his
> client do so: User B (at UAC(b)) sends an INVITE request to
> User C (at UAS(c)). User B decides to drop out of the call,
> but instructs his device to keep the call up until one of
> the parties disconnects.
>
> So User B's device, which was obviously the called party in
> the initial phase of the call (by either the 3261 or any
> reasonable and most unreasonable colloquial definitions), is
> rather clearly acting as a B2BUA.
>
> /a
>

Looking at the above example and reading the discussions on
this thread I am wondering why SIP RFC should even try to name
or give definitions to such a device.

I feel that SIP should only define behaviour of UACs,
UASs and proxies; other intelliginet(?) devices are built
using these as its communication interfaces should be out of
scope of SIP. SIP RFC does say that the intelligence built
in these devices are not in its scope, but it still tries
to give a broad definition of the term B2BUA. I feel that
also should not be done. It should restrict itself to
defining terms which are used in the RFC to define the
protocol itself.

regards,
ravi.



_______________________________________________
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