[SIPForum-techwg] Comments from 2/27 - 3/2

[Chris Sibley]

Hi Joanne,

Actually, on the Firewall and NAT traversal issue I thought that we had
already agreed to change the wording so that it would 1) accommodate the
use of SIP-aware firewalls, SBCs, etc. and 2) not specifically mandate
the exclusion of symmetric NATs and ALGs.

Here's the latest (draft 5) text as I have it right now. Feel free to
suggest any additional changes you think are needed..

Thanks,

--Chris

-----------
8	Firewall and NAT Traversal

IP addresses contained within the SIP headers of messages exchanged
between
the Service Provider and Enterprise networks MUST be publicly routable
IP
addresses.

This requirement implies that any "fix up" functions necessary for NAT
traversal have already been performed either by the device originating
the
message (i.e. using STUN/TURN/ICE, static configuration, etc.) or by a
network element (i.e. SIP-aware firewall, Session Border Controller,
etc.)
before the message is permitted to leave the Service Provider /
Enterprise
network edge.

Service Provider and Enterprise network firewalls SHOULD be
STUN-friendly
(RFC 3489 [18]), meaning that they do not interfere with the proper
operation of STUN between inside hosts and a STUN server in the DMZ.
--------------

> 

**********************************************************************
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 
**********************************************************************-----Original Message-----
> From: Joanne McMillen [mailto:joanne at avaya.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 10:40 AM
> To: Chris Sibley; techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] Comments from 2/27 - 3/2
> 
> Thanks Chris - I was getting ready to suggest something similar for
> a "discussion/voting" list for what's still outstanding so we could
all be
> clear about what those are. It's not clear we have reached consensus
> about Firewall and NAT Traversal. Is that one that will be in that
list?
> If not, can you circulate that updated text separately so we are all
on
> board with the latest text and are sure we all agree? I believe there
> were significant changes proposed.
> 
> Thanks - Joanne
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Sibley" <chris.sibley at cbeyond.net>
> To: <techwg at sipforum.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:19 AM
> Subject: [SIPForum-techwg] Comments from 2/27 - 3/2
> 
> 
> > Ernst, Hadriel, Paul/Cullen, Rohan, et al.,
> >
> > Thanks once again for reviewing and commenting on the latest version
of
> > the
> > draft. In the interest of time, rather than respond to each of your
> posts
> > individually I thought that I would take the following approach:
> >
> > 1 - Consolidate all requested changes into a "master list".
> >
> > 2 - Update the current working draft (draft 5) based on this master
list
> > where:
> >
> > A - The change is only minor (i.e. a nit)
> >
> >       and/or
> >
> > B - At least one other person has made the same comment
> >
> > (I will of course document these changes in the draft release notes
so
> > that
> > everyone can see what was changed.)
> >
> > 3 - For anything "left over", I will put together a consolidated
email
> of
> > those items that still need discussion and send it out to the group.
> >
> > Sound good?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --Chris
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > techwg mailing list
> > Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> > Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> > http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
> >