Olaf, Maybe you can suggest some words that are clear and concise and will fit somewhere in the ACH-analysis document?
John > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Olaf Bergmann > Sent: 15 February 2008 08:07 > To: Spencer Dawkins > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BLISS] ACH - question concerning B2BUAs > > John, Spencer, > > thanks for your comments. Although I agree that the solution to this > kind of protocol-related problems is not in the scope of bliss (in > fact, when looking at the reason why this broken message flow exists > at all, you will see that the cause is more on the policy side since > this is the major reason why those SBCs behave the way I described), > I also think that when describing the interaction between distinct > devices, the caveats should at least be mentioned. > > The reason why I brought this into the ACH discussion is that in "my" > network, most problems that come with forking are (1) a result of > performing ACH and (2) occur on the message upstream as illustrated in > my example. > > Thanks, > Olaf > _______________________________________________ > BLISS mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss > _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
