Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field

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