Re: [Sipping] Closing the offer/answer rollback issue -- New drawbacks

[Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipping-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sipping-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 3:43 PM
>
> I see a lot of issues raised about UAs using media they are not being
> charged for. As Tom Taylor said, this is not a new argument, or unique
> to this situation. There is always the possibility that two UAs will
> attempt to communicate using media they did not signal in an obvious way
> in the signaling channel. If they succeed in doing so, it is presumably
> because they are using a media path that they have access to independent
> of the signaling. In that case the intermediary who feels it should be
> charging for this is simply hoping to charge for a service it is not
> providing, and so has no real grievance.
>
> The case where this might be a real problem is if a middlebox controls
> the media path (what resources are assigned, and whether media is /
> isn't permitted to flow), and yet the rules about session state are such
> that the middlebox and the endpoints have differing understandings of
> whether the active session includes a given media path or not. IMO that
> is the key issue that needs to be nailed down.

+1

-hadriel