[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Janet P Gunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Your suggested behavior would seem to violate this.
That's true. But I think the RFC-compliant behavior doesn't take into
account how the incoming request validates that it is authorized to
use the priority it has claimed. The practical result is that
whenever a request crosses a trust boundary, the network operator of
the network being entered is going to remove any priority request.
I expect that the rules of the RFC will be followed by any elements
inside a *network*. But I expect network ingress/egress elements to
violate it by default.
If the header is truly only a *request*, with no implication of asserted
authorization, then there is no reason to remove it.
BUT, unless you can authenticate the sender of the request and authorize
them to receive the priority they have requested, then there is little
likelihood that it will be granted.
So the key issue is how authorization is determined. If this is a closed
military network then I imagine they will have some kind of transitive
trust that will support this.
But if the goal here is for emergency service workers to obtain priority
over all sorts of networks, then I can't imagine how it can work.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
