Maybe new drafts should have an SBC behavior section which should call out how the SBC should handle messages, similar to existing RFCs/drafts which call out how UAC & UAS should handle messages.
Sanjay >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Adam Roach >Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:42 PM >To: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat) >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Sip] SUBSCRIBE and From > >On 7/11/08 6:49 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >> But after listening to all of these problems, I wonder if it >might be >> necessary to expect SBCs to do *something* that they might not >> currently do. And just recognize that this won't work until the SBCs >> are updated. In the end we can't work around all the damage >SBCs do - >> they have some responsibility. > >Paul is 100% correct -- if we limit any future protocol >extensions to what will work through unmodified SBCs as they >exist today, then we don't need to meet in Dublin. We're done. >Shut the working group down and send everyone home. Dean and >Keith, please be sure to turn the lights off on the way out. > >Let's not the SBC tail wag the SIP dog to death. > >/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 > _______________________________________________ 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
