[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
STOP! RE: [Sip] B2BUA & Max-Forwards
Title: Message
Pardon
me while I assert.
This
thread is non-productive and downloading it is taking forever. I think we have
enough input to make any clarifications on B2BUA in bis that I think we're going
to be able to make.
The
IESG has decreed that our specs WILL have provisions for security functions,
etc. and that anything that isn't compliant with these provisions is NOT
COMPLIANT with the specification. Enough said. If you don't like it, talk to the
non-com about changing the IESG or take it up with the iESG.
Your
can build ANY NON-COMPLIANT SYSTEM YOU WANT TO BUILD. Many such systems will be
USEFUL and WIDELY DEPLOYED. But it would be an error to say that any such system
is "compliant o RFC ABCD" when that system does not implement something
that RFC ABCD lists as MUST IMPLEMENT.
So if
you have a thing you call a SIP proxy that does not implement MUST IMPLEMENT
functions of a SIP proxy as specified in RFC 3261, then it IS NOT, by
definition, a fully compliant SIP proxy. Odds are, it's some kind of B2BUA
that acts mostly but not quite like a proxy, and that's OK. But DO be advised
that anything that is "not a compliant proxy" is likely to have limitations with
some kind of service, extension or usage of SIP, and that we're NOT going to
worry about that a whole lot in the protocol design. So be prepared to
update the widget occasionally if it needs it to continue being
useful.
Thanks.
--
Dean
Willis
Annoyed Co-Chair, SIP Working
Group.