Christer, No, I meant SDP should not be modified for the purpose of NAT traversal if ICE is used. It seems it can still be changed for other purposes.
John > -----Original Message----- > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 17 March 2008 13:42 > To: Elwell, John; IETF SIP List > Subject: RE: [Sip] SBC impact on RFC 4474 > > > Hi John, > > My comment was based on your "should not be applicable with > ICE" statement, and they way I understood it was that SDP > would not be modified if ICE is used. > > Maybe I missunderstood what you were trying to say. > > Regards, > > Christer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 14. maaliskuuta 2008 13:41 > To: Christer Holmberg; IETF SIP List > Subject: RE: [Sip] SBC impact on RFC 4474 > > Christer, > > I think I already captured that in the statement "Other > reasons are topology hiding, media shaping, etc.. Such > modification breaks RFC > 4474 signatures." > If you think that is insufficient, please elaborate reasons, > so we get a better understanding of the scope of the problem. > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 14 March 2008 01:29 > > To: Elwell, John; IETF SIP List > > Subject: VS: [Sip] SBC impact on RFC 4474 > > > > Hi, > > > > SBCs may modify SDP even if ICE is used. > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Lähettäjä: [EMAIL PROTECTED] puolesta: Elwell, John > > Lähetetty: to 13.3.2008 22:27 > > Vastaanottaja: IETF SIP List > > Aihe: [Sip] SBC impact on RFC 4474 > > > > > > > > One of the questions raised at the end of the SIP session today was > > the > > following: > > > > "Are there any useful steps for dealing with SDP modification by > > SBCs?" > > > > SBCs modify SDP (and perhaps other signed information in SIP > > requests). > > One of the reasons is NAT traversal (should not be applicable with > > ICE, but I don't think we can always assume that ICE is used). > > Other reasons > > are topology hiding, media shaping, etc.. Such modification > breaks RFC > > 4474 signatures. > > > > SBCs also sometimes change From URIs in SIP requests, as > discussed in > > draft-kaplan-sip-uris-change-00. We have taken this into account > > during our various discussions (in the WG and off-line) on the > > telephone number problem, so I want to keep that separate. For this > > thread, assume an "email-style" (or non-phone-number-based) > From URI > > that is not modified by an SBC. Focus instead on > modification of other > > signed information. > > > > I would like to hear views on the following: > > - The degree to which this is a problem. > > - Existing solution proposals: > > o draft-wing-sip-identity-media-02 > > o draft-fischer-sip-e2e-sec-media-00 > > - Other solution proposals. > > > > John > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip mailing list https://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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://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
