Re: [Sip] RFC 4474 and SBC traversal

[Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net>]

This issue is totally independent from E.164

I don't like the idea of requiring DTLS-SRTP to provide proof of 
possession of the keying material.

Ciao
Hannes


Elwell, John wrote:
> SBCs do exist, often for good reasons that Hadriel has expanded on
> already. I firmly believe that DTLS-SRTP will not be deployable in a
> meaningful way without addressing this problem. Concerning solutions, we
> have drafts from Kai and Dan, or perhaps a merger of the two somehow
> would work. It also depends to some extent whether we are talking only
> about email-style URIs or about E.164-based URIs too.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
>   

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip