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

[Dean Willis <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 28, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:

>
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
>
>> 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).
>>
>
> Right, that particular idea is mis-guided. :)
>
> What you'd really do for that is indicate whether or not the b2bua  
> supports ICE (since some SBC's do, and some don't, indicating you're  
> an SBC doesn't help).

Opposite: You want to know that the sbc masks (that is, breaks) ICE,  
so that (based on the presumption that if you don't have any  
information you should try ICE), you can choose not to ICE if you know  
it's going to fail.

Option-tag: icebreaker. Semantic: a node that supports this extension  
is going to piddle in your ICE. Send traffic at room-temperature  
instead of iceing it unless you like yellow drinks.

--
Dean