IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] Open issues in draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-09

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Tue, 18 June 2013 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC4D21F9B01 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.151
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7LFQlTJfkHWR for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us1.mailhostbox.com [69.93.141.228]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D23421E8095 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.179.88.201]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A1362190801D; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:54:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1371574472; bh=EiCmveK8rII6OxWzev0oQCYvgCwzju3Sbit6wWrkwkM=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=KH6pLz1S6Q4HBIbHvsMM9MUZsQi54MbwjQVavrph5nSXpK/wn18i/Ygg4AXumdZD2 YwKbrtfUerSbOXKwZ6c9g+oO6aQS5WT0sHmJen5O7O81Qg7NWP2GSGd4gpgGK0kh9r D0htfVyCr0jM617tKjuzPX06Ocbl2TcUQKNzmDmM=
From: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: 'Iñaki Baz Castillo' <ibc@aliax.net>
References: <CALiegfmtohM8Nnf34o2EqMr-jV-LaQBP7mOB5qq+7OcQO9FkSA@mail.gmail.com> <003f01ce6aaf$aabda760$0038f620$@co.in> <CALiegf=U9fNPcL83TbWPQirNczZ-faHmG1R+AiPVuBLa=pfe6A@mail.gmail.com> <005801ce6b81$c6669d50$5333d7f0$@co.in> <CALiegf=B48qzkt2VAVsg3n+86KgPS-xb=48+Mf3uLY9sibGXgA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegf=B48qzkt2VAVsg3n+86KgPS-xb=48+Mf3uLY9sibGXgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:24:25 +0530
Message-ID: <012001ce6c44$7fcf96d0$7f6ec470$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: Ac5rgySkoXwl3I19TmyScmJuVUqk1gAwSmXA
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0C0201.51C090C8.0002, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Rules:
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 2
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 70.87.28.138
Cc: "'SIPCORE (Session Initiation Protocol Core) WG'" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Open issues in draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-09
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:54:43 -0000

Hi Inaki,

<snip> I hope this draft won't become a "general tutorial for SIP and NAT". </snip>

My reported "contact" header problem is related to SIP routing issue and not related to NAT.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:20 PM
> To: Parthasarathi R
> Cc: SIPCORE (Session Initiation Protocol Core) WG
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Open issues in draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-
> 09
> 
> 2013/6/17 Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>:
> > As you mentioned, "record-route" is the right solution and not
> documented in the draft as of now. My comment is to explicitly add the
> statement for clarity.
> 
> The draft describes a SIP transport, not a network topology.
> 
> For clients behind NAT, RFC 5626 (Outbound) already describes a
> mechanism and requirements for clients and proxies to properly work.
> RFC 5626 can perfectly be applied to scenarios in which SIP-WebSocket
> is present. So no need to duplicate all the information provided by
> RFC 5626 in this draft.
> 
> Anyhow, the Appendix "Implementation Guidelines" already suggests
> using Record-Route within the "SIP WebSocket Server Considerations"
> subsection:
> 
>    The SIP Outbound extension [RFC5626] seems an appropriate solution
>    for this scenario.  Therefore these SIP WebSocket Clients and the
> SIP
>    registrar implement both the Outbound and Path [RFC3327] extensions,
>    and the SIP proxy acts as an Outbound Edge Proxy (as defined in
>    [RFC5626] section 3.4).
> 
> And of course RFC 5626 already states that a Outbound Edge Proxy must
> do record-routing. I hope this draft won't become a "general tutorial
> for SIP and NAT".
> 
> 
> Regards.
> 
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email