Re: [sipcore] Draft new: draft-holmberg-sipcore-proxy-feature [was: Feature-tags in the Path header field]

Hi,

I read the draft and I think the semantics are ok (although John's
point about multiple proxies with these tags is a good one).

One use which occurred to me - but which is no doubt controversial  -
is whether a proxy/B2B which is an SBC could provide a feature tag
indicating it is an SBC - so that UAs which register and call through
it could skip adding ICE candidates. (My point is merely that I
suspect other uses for this capability will be found - even if you
think this  particular idea is mis-guided).

Regards,

Peter Musgrave

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> wrote:
> [as chair]
>
> To all sipcore participants:
>
> Christer has been looking for a way to accomplish a particular function that
> 3gpp wants. This proposal seems a plausible way to do that. But it is of
> necessity defining a more general mechanism.
>
> I'd really appreciate comments from others (including people in no way
> involved with 3gpp) regarding this mechanism. For instance, do you consider
> the semantics to be well defined? Do you see need for more about security
> implications?
>
> How many would find this useful to have?
>
>        Thanks,
>        Paul
>
> On 9/24/2010 7:04 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've submitted a draft, which extends the rr-param rule, allowing proxies
>> to indicate supported features using feature tags in Path, Record-Route etc.
>>
>> The draft can also be found at:
>> http://users.piuha.net/cholmber/drafts/draft-holmberg-sipcore-proxy-feature-00.txt
>>
>> As I indicated earlier on the list, and as you can read in the draft,
>> there is a 3GPP use-case where we believe the mechanism could be used. But,
>> there is nothing 3GPP specific about the mechanism as such.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>