[Sip] Some question about draft:A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Policies

马骥 <buptmj@yahoo.cn> Wed, 02 January 2008 01:26 UTC

Return-path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9sN0-0005I6-54; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:26:10 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J511V-00030i-U5 for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:39:53 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J511V-0002yM-JB for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:39:53 -0500
Received: from web92207.mail.cnh.yahoo.com ([203.209.250.120]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J511U-0000By-9j for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:39:53 -0500
Received: (qmail 869 invoked by uid 60001); 19 Dec 2007 15:39:50 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.cn; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=rQIgQr07AJDFcPMAuu0rDl1Y0BP5kwHNpBKdndB5EFqNvvcVcsmM1JEvd7GulLl4pC2CL8RAW3jW3Dp0Ud6KOZUPyfVM3ni65Z2vZbeQ/SVvi82p743IgZP99/ac7vfnbPsrVFhpLRuIS2svMMIBJLwyxraaZHudL1o9syE06YI=;
X-YMail-OSG: 2kuWjnsVM1kD6zomo5qaPbynY00Sax.0CvShIxWYOMuDqwIRwpspgXreVEv2..MSIochFoIdaMhFDJYi.csdoJ72su3XUaVk9h0k
Received: from [218.22.22.182] by web92207.mail.cnh.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:39:50 CST
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:39:50 +0800 (CST)
From: =?gb2312?q?=C2=ED=E6=F7=20=20?= <buptmj@yahoo.cn>
To: sip@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <723963.268.qm@web92207.mail.cnh.yahoo.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:26:08 -0500
Subject: [Sip] Some question about draft:A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Policies
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0519298551=="
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

    I have some questions about the frame work proposed in the draft which defines a framework for SIP policy. See bellow:          1. What the advantage is in the proposed framework in which UA require its policy (which means it contacts policy server after contacts proxy) by itself? An alternative is, the proxy contacts the proxy server on behalf of the UA, and return or not return determined policies, which means UA need not involved in the procedure of contacting policy server. So why the one proposed in the draft is better?
   
      2. If it retrieves policies according to call flow this draft, how a proxy knows that the policies in the resending request for the UA is genuine, especially for the specific ongoing request?(which means there should be security mechanism to avoid replay attacks).Can anyone give me some ideas or solutions?
   
  Thanks.
  _______
  mjhorse



       
---------------------------------
雅虎邮箱传递新年祝福,个性贺卡送亲朋! 
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip