RE: [Sip] sip-session-timer-11: why explicitly impose proxy restr ictions on all the b2bua's

["Brett Tate" <brett@broadsoft.com>]

> Does that imply that there should not be any mention
> of B2BUAs at all in any document other than 3261, 
> which is quite deliberately vague?
> 
> I would AT LEAST want to point out issues, such as 
> the "one side fails, the other side should be brought 
> down".

Even that is not necessarily always true since
some b2bua's might want to connect the still
active side to treatments or trigger another call
to the dropped party.

> By your reckoning, would that be out of scope 
> for a standards track document, and merely notes 
> in some BCP?

Unless the standards track document is explicitly
associated with how one must or should implement
a particular category of b2bua, I do not think
that a document should impose a MUST or SHOULD
upon how a B2BUA bridges the two call halves.

> I've been seeing lots of B2BUA "misuse" lately.  
> The common one is "I have a proxy that modifies 
> headers, therefore I call it a B2BUA, and everyone 
> is fine".  There are no protocol police, and there 
> are no "architecture" police, but I think it is in 
> the community's interest to at least provide expert 
> guidance on how B2BUAs 'should' work. 
> This is an example.  'Should' is okay with me; 
> it would let your example be "legal".

The SHOULD is fine for some types of b2bua's.
However SHOULD NOT is more appropriate for other
types of b2bua's.  Thus I'd prefer the text
not be in the document.


_______________________________________________
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