I really think the real point is not "preserving existing SBC behavior" or
"preserving 4474 behavior".
It seems to me the real point that is being made is that perhaps there is a way
to have a useful Identity mechanism, even while allowing IP addresses and ports
to be modified in transit, provided that there is a sufficient mechanism for
allowing (1) the media to integrity protected, (2) the media to be correlated
to the identity, and (3) allowing for detection media being "cut".
I believe Jon was saying that furthermore, it must be detectable if the IP
address and port was modified in transit. I'm not completly clear why it's
necessary if all the conditions above are met. Maybe it's part of (3).
________________________________
From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 19:18
To: Dan Wing
Cc: 'Anthony D Pike'; 'Cullen Jennings'; 'Jon Peterson'; [email protected];
Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); 'DRAGE, Keith (Keith)'; 'Dean Willis'
Subject: Re: [Sip] francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the
field
Ah, I misunderstood your earlier statement -- "I am really interested
in preserving identity over [SIP networks today with intermediaries that modify
SDP in transit]" -- to mean that the intermediaries were not to be modified. So
we're really both talking about SIP networks for some upcoming tomorrow, not
SIP networks today.
Good. I think that leaves a lot of common ground to work with.
/a
_______________________________________________
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
