[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sip] B2BUA & Max-Forwards
Hello,
"I am at the point where I agree with the sentiment raised by others,
that we should remove the term b2bua entirely from the specification. It
has caused more confusion than anything else."
Yes, this is one possibility. An alternative (as I proposed in an earlier
mail) is to complete the current definition in 3261 saying explicitly that
:
1) A B2BUA handles two or more UAs, each one behaving as UAC/UAS, as
described in 3261 for UAs
2) The SIP protocol specification does not mandate for any behaviour of
such B2BUA, i.e. on how to "link" (or "concatenate") two or more UAs.
Best regards
Juan Carlos
Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>@ietf.org on 05/12/2002
17:16:52
Sent by: sip-admin@ietf.org
To: Pete Cordell <pete@tech-know-ware.com>
cc: Adam Roach <adam@dynamicsoft.com>, "'Phil Reynolds'"
<preynolds@ridgewaysystems.com>, sip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] B2BUA & Max-Forwards
Pete Cordell wrote:
> This is correct. A B2BUA can't blindly forward a request containing a
> Require header.
>
> The saving grace for a B2BUA is that it does not need to understand the
> extension in detail. It just needs to know whether it can forward a
request
> that contains a given Require header. This can be easily provisioned
using
> some sort of ASCII configuration file, and doesn't require any new code
etc.
> A B2BUA could even routinely download the list of acceptable Require
headers
> from some sort of server. (A smart B2BUA could even post back a set of
> unknown Require headers that it has seen recently.)
This is a vast over-simplification.
As people have been saying over and over in this thread, there is no
such thing as a "generic b2bua" as you seem to be implying. What is
right in a b2bua depends entirely on what its doing. To be honest, I
can't think of any b2bua for which the processing you describe above is
sensible. As I mentioned in a previous note, a b2bua deviates from a
proxy by doing some featurs that are normally associated with a UA. That
b2bua will need to process extensions (i.e., implement them) that are
associated with that feature.
I am at the point where I agree with the sentiment raised by others,
that we should remove the term b2bua entirely from the specification. It
has caused more confusion than anything else.
-Jonathan R.
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist First Floor
dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936
jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com
_______________________________________________
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