[SIPForum-techwg] STUN usage in PBX SP interface draft

[Sharon Laivand]

Hi 

 

I understand and respect what you are saying, but still have a few
concerns:

 

The RFC 3489 has serious security problems, which may make it
unpractical to be used by an operator.

In addition there some other issues with network detection procedure and
working with TCP.

 

I think that if we stick to the old 3489 all implementers could not
avoid the double work of implementing the 3489 and then 3489 bis 04.

 

BTW: as a stack vendor this situation is much better for us, since we
can sell more stacks, but this is wrong...

We would like to see the industry using one clear specification.
According to last IETF meeting it seems that no one had objection to the
bis-04, and if I understood correctly Rosenberg assumed he can finalize
this draft on next iteration.

 

 

 

Thanks. 

Sharon Laivand

________________________________

From: Jay Batson [mailto:batsonjay at sipforum.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 5:04 AM
To: Joanne McMillen; SIP Forum Tech WG
Cc: Francois Audet; Sharon Laivand
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] STUN usage in PBX SP interface draft

 

Joanne --

 

The Recommendation is currently in "Proposed Recommendation" status.
This means all substantial work on the Recommendation has been declared
complete by the Task Group chair and authors/editors.  The current
last-call version of the Recommendation can be found on our website
here:

http://www.sipforum.org/component/option,com_docman/task,cat_view/gid,29
/Itemid,75/

 

This state is intended to be stable enough for vendors to implement.  It
stays in this state until at least two implementations exist that -
between them - implement the substantial bulk of the Recommendation, and
this implementation is demonstrated at a SIPit event.  It is possible
that - following implementation experience - the Recommendation could
change, but the point is to get real-implementation experience before we
declare the Recommendation "done."

 

We're hoping that implementations will show up at this fall's SIPit
event (see
http://www.sipforum.org/component/option,com_advanced_events/task,view_d
etail/agid,9/ )

 

Cheers

-jb

 

 

On Jul 31, 2006, at 9:19 PM, Joanne McMillen wrote:





I agree 100% - can't go there unless it's RFC.

But... that kinda brings up a question I have been wondering about
anyway.

Where exactly are we with the interface spec?

 

I would think issues like this would now be focused on an updated
version, but I'm unclear

where we are on the original version. Can someone clarify for me please?

<snip>

 

----------

Jay Batson

Acting Managing Director, Chairman

batsonjay at sipforum.org

+1-978-824-0111

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/attachments/20060801/aea2fbdf/attachment-0002.html