Any solution that will not work through conformant (:-) B2BUA's will be useless in practice. It is the same kind of thing as ignoring NATs.
/Hans Erik -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BLISS] Call-completion design question: End-to-end parameters From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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. I think that John's case happens in non-anonymized calls as well. Then this would become yet another requirement on B2BUAs - that they not mess with callids. The irony is that one of the few RFC 3261 restrictions on B2BUAs is that they don't use the same Call-Id on the outgoing leg that was used on the incoming leg. And many B2BUAs violate that. But the violaters do not cause a problem for the CC design; it's the conformant B2BUAs that are the problem. Dale _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
