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

[Francois Audet]

These specs change significantly every meeting.
 
To me, it means that we need to wait for 3589bis to become an RFC....


________________________________

	From: Sharon Laivand [mailto:sharonl at radvision.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 12:27 AM
	To: Jay Batson; Joanne McMillen; SIP Forum Tech WG
	Cc: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
	Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] STUN usage in PBX SP interface
draft
	
	

	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/cec3bae2/attachment-0002.html