RE: [Sip] B2BUA & Max-Forwards

[hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 6:17 PM
> To: Pete Cordell
> Cc: Adam Roach; 'Phil Reynolds'; sip@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Sip] B2BUA & Max-Forwards
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

I agree. Just forget about this B2BUA thing. There are things called "Application Servers (AS)" that perform whatever service you wish to invent. And most importantly, they are UASs.

Think presence server. It is one type of AS. It receives SUBSCRIBE, on its UAS side, that is destined to a URI who's principle normally uses a terminal, and responds to them. Therefore needs to handle require-header.

This Presence Server may initiate a SUBSCRIBE of its own, from its UAC side, that is destined to the same user. Here we have a B2BUA, but I hate that name, so I say here we have an Application Server.

Think also presence list server. This is an example of one UAS to many UACs or one to many B2BUA. I like to call it Application Server.

So lets drop this term B2BUA and use Application Server instead. I think people understand this term better.

If 3GPP want every intermediary in the network to do something that is not SIP proxy compliant, then they better call it Application Server.

Regards,
Hisham
_______________________________________________
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