Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Dean Willis <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Apr 2, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > p.s. and not all transits do change SDP, and some only change SDP in > certain circumstances (like for transcoding). > Well we certainly can't expect transcoding to be compatible with e2e crypto. So are there any legitimate use cases for requiring that the protocol supports MITM rewriting of SDP? Having a transit provider that, for unknown reasons changes SDP is still not an adequate justification. Perhaps is lots of calls started failing because they endpoints detect that a MITM attack on their signaling/media has occurred, and did so in a way that makes that failure evident to the MITM, then we'd see fewer MITMs making that mistake. -- 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