[SIPForum-techwg] Question re Application Server

[Paul Kyzivat]

Chris,

This looks reasonable to me.

I see my questions are coming at the "11th hour" relative to the plans 
for this document. That is just coincidence on my part, and does not 
reflect any intent to derail the work. My goal in posting questions was 
first and foremost to simply get clarifications of intent, hopefully 
without precipitating a change in the document. If it turns out that the 
clarifications seem to require changes to the document I am fully 
understanding if those need to be put into a queue for a revision at a 
later time.

	Thanks,
	Paul

Chris Sibley wrote:
> Team,
> 
> Attached is the first pass of my edits for Section 13 to address the
> issue that Paul brought up. Please take a look and let me know what you
> think. In case you are not aware, I believe we are scheduled to announce
> the availability of this recommendation on Tuesday so I would appreciate
> your feedback as soon as you can.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> --Chris
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
> On
>> Behalf Of Chris Sibley
>> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:21 AM
>> To: Paul Kyzivat; SIP Forum Tech WG
>> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] Question re Application Server
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Firstly, my apologies for taking so long to respond. I have been on
>> vacation and it's taken a while to dig myself out.
>>
>> Secondly, thanks for your very astute comments! You are quite right
>> that, given the current wording, calls between Enterprises (handled by
>> the SP) would require a B2BUA. When this text was written, we were
>> (only) contemplating calls that ORIGINATED from the PSTN and were
>> destined to an Enterprise. So, in this scenario, since the headers are
>> actually being created for the first time the text would be correct.
>>
>> However, as you pointed out, there is certainly significant value in
> the
>> SP handling calls BETWEEN Enterprises. That said, I think we need to
>> clarify Section 13 to define rules for calls that originate from the
>> PSTN (current wording) as well as calls that originate from another
>> Enterprise (and handled by the SP, of course).
>>
>> What do you think? If everyone agrees I can put together something
> today
>> / tonight and send it out for your review..
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --Chris
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
> [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
>> On
>>> Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
>>> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 1:41 PM
>>> To: SIP Forum Tech WG
>>> Subject: [SIPForum-techwg] Question re Application Server
>>>
>>> I am trying to understand the nuances of draft 5, and there is
>> something
>>> I am unsure of: Is the Application Server required to act as a
> B2BUA,
>> or
>>> is it permitted to act as a proxy? There is no mention of B2BUAs in
>> the
>>> document, but I think it may be implied.
>>>
>>> In particular, suppose we have one service provider servicing two
>>> enterprises: acme.com and bozo.com.
>>>
>>> Acme has a phone number +12125551234, and Bozo has +14085556789.
> Then
>>> Acme calls Bozo. According to the spec, the call from Acme is
>> addressed
>>> as:
>>>
>>> 	INVITE sip:+14085556789 at serviceprovider.net;user=phone SIP/2.0
>>> 	To: <sip:+14085556789 at serviceprovider.net;user=phone>
>>> 	From: <sip:+12125551234 at acme.com;user=phone>
>>>
>>> But then the instructions for service provider addressing say that
>> when
>>> this is sent to Bozo that it should be addressed as:
>>>
>>> 	INVITE sip:+14085556789 at bozo.com;user=phone SIP/2.0
>>> 	To: <sip:+14085556789 at bozo.com;user=phone>
>>> 	From: <sip:+12125551234 at serviceprovider.net;user=phone>
>>>
>>> To change the To and From fields in this way requires that the
>>> Application Server be a B2BUA. If this is routed using proxy
> routing,
>>> then the message going to Bozo would perhaps look like:
>>>
>>> 	INVITE sip:+14085556789 at bozo.com;user=phone SIP/2.0
>>> 	To: <sip:+14085556789 at serviceprovider.net;user=phone>
>>> 	From: <sip:+12125551234 at acme.com;user=phone>
>>>
>>> So, is it a requirement to have a B2BUA in the path, or is proxy
>> routing
>>> ok?
>>>
>>> 	Thanks,
>>> 	Paul
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> techwg mailing list
>>> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
>>> Unsubscribe or edit options at:
>>> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> 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
>> **********************************************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> techwg mailing list
>> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
>> Unsubscribe or edit options at:
>> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
> 
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 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 
> **********************************************************************