[SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 2.0 requirements kick off discussion

[Michael Procter]

(Apologies for the delay)

I'd like to propose the following change.

Section 9 - Firewall and NAT traversal
This section currently states that:
        Any IP address contained within the headers ... of SIP messages
        exchanged between the Service Provider and the Enterprise networks
        MUST be a publicly routable address.

I believe that this is too strict, and leads to certain proxy-based network configurations being unimplementable without a topology hiding SBC/B2BUA.  Since I don't believe that this is the intent of the document, I suggest that the paragraph is weakened to only require IP addresses in the topmost Via and Record-Route headers to be publicly routable.

This could be broadened out into a review to ensure that the interface can be implemented by appropriately configured proxies and UAs - this might just be the change I described above, or there may be one or two other minor tweaks.

Does this sound like a worthwhile goal?

Regards,

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
> On Behalf Of Richard Shockey
> Sent: 06 November 2007 21:24
> To: 'SIP Forum Tech WG'
> Subject: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 2.0 requirements kick off
> discussion
>
>
> The SIPforum board hopes to formally ratify the SIPconnect 1.0
> specification
> shortly.
>
> There is substantial interest in moving forward with a SIPconnect 2.0
> specification which I anticipate will be approved.
>
> In order to move things along, it is probably prudent to ask all the
> folks
> on this list to start putting on your thinking caps and post here your
> thoughts on what are the requirements for a 2.0 specification. That
> way we
> can start to list out want needs to be done and come up with some
> consensus
> on what the 2.0 roadmap looks like.
>
> What do you like about 1.0?
>
> What don't you like about 1.0?
>
> Are we adding substracting ?
>
> In IETF like terms ... what is the charter for 2.0?
>
> What kind of milestones for 2.0 do we need to consider?
>
> Target date for conclusion..
>
> IMHO if we can get a charter/requirements/milestones done by Jan 1 we
> would
> be doing well ..holidays coming up and all that but there is no reason
> to
> simply wait if there are specific ideas people want to put on the
> table now.
>
> The list is open ..
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg