Re: B2B-UA's provide an unsolveable identity problem (was RE: submission of a new I-D: "Dialog Event foRIdentityVErification")

I personally don't think that the matter of a B2BUA is a showstopping
one -- a B2BUA, which is a largely underspecified element, can  be still
built in a way that DERIVE will work. (by not mangling callid, by 
responding
on UAS's behalf....)

I think it would be reasonable to mention when DERIVE fails though ....




-jiri


Attila Sipos wrote:
>>> i strongly disagree.  b2bua is just an ua.  if you you build or deploy
>>> such boxes, it is your headache, not sip wg's.
> 
> I agree with Juha here.
> 
> Every attempt at fixing identity problems (and they have been clever
> solutions) has been hindered with the "but it won't work with B2BUAs"
> argument.
> 
> The problem is not "it won't work with B2BUAs" - the  problem is that
> B2BUA identity and security problems are unsolveable anyway. A B2BUA
> cannot be forced to do anything because even if you said "it must do
> this and that", a B2BUA can do what it wants anyway (I'm sure we've all
> seen this).  Even if B2BUAs agreed to do certain things, one would
> always enf up with something else that gets B2B'ed.
> 
> It is no different to trying to solve the problem of 2 telephones taped
> together.
> 
> You can only trust things up to a certain boundary.  And the boundaries
> of SIP are the UAs.  The best that SIP can do is to control what happens
> between a UA and another UA (and proxies in between) and that's it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Attila
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Juha Heinanen
> Sent: 31 October 2008 06:31
> To: Elwell, John
> Cc: [email protected]; Dan Wing
> Subject: Re: [Sip] submission of a new I-D: "Dialog Event
> foRIdentityVErification"
> 
> Elwell, John writes:
> 
>  > > I support draft-kuthan-sip-derive-00, and hope the WG can devote  >
>> time and energy to improving and standardizing it to work well  > >
> across a variety of networks.
>  > [JRE] I agree. This must include networks that contain B2BUAs/SBCs.
> 
> i strongly disagree.  b2bua is just an ua.  if you you build or deploy
> such boxes, it is your headache, not sip wg's.  it is enough that this
> work is based on rfc3261 components.
> 
> -- juha
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
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