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

[Joanne McMillen]

Works for me - thanks ...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Francois Audet" <audet at nortel.com>
To: "Chris Sibley" <Chris.Sibley at cbeyond.net>; "Joanne McMillen" 
<joanne at avaya.com>; <techwg at sipforum.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 1:08 PM
Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Comments from 2/27 - 3/2


Looks good to me.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
> [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Chris Sibley
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:54
> To: Joanne McMillen; techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Comments from 2/27 - 3/2
>
>
> 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
> > >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>
>