Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Adam Roach <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dan Wing wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email protected]] >> ... >> Dan Wing wrote: >> >> On SIP networks today we have intermediaries modifying >> SDP in transit. It's >> happening now, on real networks. I am really >> interested in preserving >> identity over those networks. >> >> ... >> >> I think it's important to distinguish among three classes of >> solutions in this space: >> >> 1. Identity that works through existing B2BUAs >> 2. Identity that might not work through existing B2BUAs, >> but that B2BUAs can be modified to work with >> 3. Identity that precludes the presence of B2BUAs >> >> ... >> >> At the risk of suggesting compromise, I'll point out that >> there *is* a way to mutually satisfy those people who reject >> solutions in class #1 and those people who reject solutions >> in class #3. I suspect that useful progress lies in that >> direction only. >> > > Agreed. And I also prefer #2. 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