On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 14:04 -0500, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > Right, and this is why I said this is not some panacea > solve-world-hunger thing. And in fact why the Session-ID draft has > language like "with as high a probability as possible". I know it's > not comfortable language for engineers. But I am pretty sure there is > no solution to this problem space that does not have corner cases. > (well... unless you require changing all SIP devices everywhere, which > for me is an unacceptable prerequisite)
I'm losing track of what problem you're attempting to solve. I thought the problem was to identify the dialog-sets that are created by "B2BUA pass-through". But now it seems that the mechanism only identifies some of these dialog-sets and doesn't identify others, because any short-circuiting of INVITE/Replaces (and possibly other call-control operations) defeats the mechanism. There's also a problem with using Session-Id to identify dialogs, as to-tag mangling is not compensated for. It seems that the only case that is well-handled is the simplest PSTN-like call: A UAC sends an INVITE that does not fork through a B2BUA to a UAS. Dale _______________________________________________ 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
