Re: Comment on DERIVE and B2BUAs

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: 28 October 2008 22:36
> To: Elwell, John
> Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Comment on DERIVE and B2BUAs
> 
> Elwell, John wrote:
> > 
> > IBC said:
> >> Since the B2BUA has detailed info of both legs A and B, it is
> >> capable of doing needed changes, as replacing call-id and to-tag in
> >> Event header. Also, the B2BUA could handle the SUBSCRIBE by its
> >> own, this is, becoming a dialog presence server instead of
> >> forwarding the SUBSCRIBE to the UA. B2BUA must handle all this
> >> stuff since they are, in fact, the end point, not the UA's behind
> >> them.
> >
> > [JRE] This reduces it to transitive trust, i.e., no better than
> > P-Asserted-Identity. The UA that receives the INVITE request has to
> > trust its local B2BUA to confirm that the INVITE request really did
> > come from the wherever it claimed to have come from.
> > 
> >
> 
> Since the INVITE is coming from the SBC (even though the SBC was
> influenced by something else to get it to send the INVITE), I 
> don't see
> a problem with this.
> 
> Otherwise said, SBCs are always transitive trust unless we have
> end-to-end crypto, in which case we don't really have SBCs.
[JRE] So we need to find a way of making e2e crypto work through SBCs.

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