Re: [sipcore] SBC-friendliness of 4244bis

["Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[e-mail]>]

________________________________________
From: Hadriel Kaplan [[e-mail]]

Interesting idea.  There's no doubt SBCs will strip/anonymize the heck out of this thing (some already do for current Hist-Info).  But I'm not sure there's a one-size-fits-all model.  For example I see different rules being employed between carriers, vs. between a carrier and subscribers, vs. between enterprises and carriers.  But you do have a point.  Especially if we want GRUU's to survive.
_______________________________________________

What I am particularly concerned about is that we define H-I so that SBCs aren't *forced* to do scorched-earth stripping of H-Is if the  policy requirement is to remove certain subsets of the information.  E.g., if an egress SBC wants to fold all the activities within the carrier to appear to be just one proxy step, it needs to be able to identify the point in the H-I tree that is the matching ingress SBC.  

(BTW, it seems to me that this sort of folding is a nice form of "topology hiding", in that everything *outside* of the carrier remains unchanged, but the carrier admits nothing about how it accomplishes its operations.  With some care, the carrier can still reveal diversion steps that it has performed that are part of the service model that is to be revealed to the user.)

Given that we have someone present who is well aware of the tastes of that market, we might as well get input to minimize future trouble.

Dale