Hello,
"I don't get this. Does two or more mean, for example, four?"
Two or more means exactly that: two or more. The exact number depends on
what the application is actually providing, and you cannot fixe it in
advance.
think "starfish" thx, -r
"but a pair of UAC/UAS concatenations"
OK, I get your point, you are thinking on a specific class of application
for bi-party communications. But this is only one case.
At the end, I start to agree with some other people:
- either we are able to provide a definition of a B2BUA independently of
what the B2BUA is actually doing
- or we drop the definition
Best regards
Juan Carlos
<aki.niemi@nokia.com> on 05/12/2002 19:54:26
To: Juan-Carlos ROJAS/FR/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
cc: <sip@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Sip] B2BUA & Max-Forwards
Hi,
inline.
I don't get this. Does two or more mean, for example, four? And does that"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
in turn make it a B2BB2BUA? ;)
The only minor clarification I think might be in order for RFC3261 is that
it's not just a UAC/UAS concatenation, but a pair of UAC/UAS
concatenations.
However, the fact that the traffic in this thread alone equals to a year's
worth of emails on the SIMPLE list suggests that no clarification is enough
clarification.
So I agree with the other people in that getting rid of the definition
altogether is the best option. After all, if it looks like a UA to the
outside world, it must be a UA.
Yes, probably the reason why the definition for a B2BUA is also useless.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.
Cheers,
Aki
_______________________________________________
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