[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> - it only works for B2BUAs that work this way. Currently there are none.
> And of course there can be several, including ones that have no
> particular desire to make this feature work.
>
> Well, getting call-completion to get through a B2BUA is going to
> require *some* assumptions about what the B2BUA does. What
> assumptions can be safely made?
Given that we don't standardize them, pretty much nothing.
If we need to start making some assumptions about them, then I hope the
requirements are not highly specialized to particular features.
> - removing the callid is considered by some to be required to hide node
> names (which are often part of the callid). If that it thought to be
> important then copying the callid to another field will defeat the intent.
>
> The advantage of using Call-Id to identify calls is that all calls
> already have Call-Ids. Without using Call-Id as the default
> identifier, every call originator has to be revised to add another
> identifier to every call.
Perhaps one could make the case that if you are trying to anonymize your
call then call completion *shouldn't* work. If so, then we only need
deal with cases where it isn't anonymized. Then this would become yet
another requirement on B2BUAs - that they not mess with callids.
> What do you propose?
That we ban B2BUAs?
Lets get Hadriel to tell us what we can count on from B2BUAs.
Paul
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
