Elwell, John wrote: > Paul, > > The problem is, what incentive does the SBC vendor have to go to these > lengths? I really think we need a solution that doesn't require the SBC > to do any more than pass information on transparently. RFC 4474 fits > this criterion, except that it won't work when SBCs do media steering or > make other "harmless" changes to signed information. >
The problem is that if the SBC has the power to arbitrarily rewrite the contents of the message, then it is potentially doing much more than just "pass information on transparently". If it was transparent, it would be a proxy, not an SBC! The "right" way to do what we seem to want here probably involves adding a routing protocol layer to RTP. That, however, makes for a very different architecture from what we have now. -- Dean _______________________________________________ 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
