Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > Sweet draft.
Thanks! > > I would actually define the session-based IM usage for this first. > It would fix a lot of the NAT traversal issues we can't currently get > around with MSRP. (the basic lesson being: don't put IP > Addresses/ports in application layer messages when you don't need to) I thought about that a bunch; I had planned a separate draft on how MSRP is different than session-mode IM over TOTE. The million dollar question is, what MSRP features would be lost and would we still need them. I've convinced myself that the key architectural difference - the use of turn for relays rather than an IM-specific relay, causes a very different inter-server connection model and has a huge impact on the functionality required in the protocol. That said, I do think TOTE has a really good overall nat/sbc story. Its usage of ice-tcp will allow it to work reasonably well (with some amount of relaying...) with existing fw/nat. Whether it would work through existing SBCs depends a lot on what they do; whether they have the ability to pass unknown m-lines or not. However, more importantly, once an SBC does support TOTE, it would only need to support it once, and then from then on, all tote-based applications would work through the resulting connection (of course I have no doubt that SBCs would want to do per-purpose blocking/allowing but this becomes an issue of configuration and NOT software update; that is what I want to avoid). -Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 499 Thornall St. Cisco Fellow Edison, NJ 08837 Cisco, Voice Technology Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (408) 902-3084 http://www.cisco.com _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list http://www.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
