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

[Chris Sibley]

Agreed. We will definitely want to keep an eye on 3489bis and ICE for
inclusion in the next version of the specification, but since both are
not yet at RFC status we can't refer to them now.

 

Thanks,

 

--Chris

 

  _____  

From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
On Behalf Of Francois Audet
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 1:05 PM
To: Sharon Laivand; techwg at sipforum.org
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] STUN usage in PBX SP interface draft

 

We can't really point to "drafts", especially these ones which changes
drastically every 4 months.

 

We'll have to either use RFC 3489, or if 3489bis becomes an RFC soon,
that 3489bis RFC.

 

Same thing applies to ICE: we can't refer to it until it becomes an RFC.

	 

	
  _____  


	From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
[mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Sharon Laivand
	Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 7:21 AM
	To: techwg at sipforum.org
	Subject: [SIPForum-techwg] STUN usage in PBX SP interface draft

	Hello all,

	 

	As you all probably know, STUN standardization moves towards
RFC-3489-bis-04. The latest STUN draft is not backwards compatible with
RFC 3489.

	The new STUN draft is fitted to co-operate with ICE
functionality. Therefore we can assume that at that point or another,
the bis-04 drat will replace the 3489 one...

	 

	 

	Why don't we put the RFC-3489-bis-04 as the "MUST" one (or at
least optional) in the PBX-SP interface draft?

	 

	 

	Thanks.

	 

	Sharon Laivand

	RADVISION,  TBU

	www.radvision.com <http://www.radvision.com/> 

	 



**********************************************************************
This email may contain confidential information. If you are not
the intended recipient, please advise by return email and delete
immediately without reading or forwarding to others.
 -- Cbeyond 
**********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/attachments/20060801/67dce8ec/attachment-0002.html