Re: [Sipping] Purpose of camarillo-sipping-sbc-funcs-02

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cullen,

my opinion is that this draft should focus on documenting functions that 
are needed (i.e., folks are currently implementing them) and that are 
implemented in a way that breaks SIP somehow. The fact that these 
functions are implemented by an SBC seems irrelevant to me.

A document with such a scope would be useful to:

1) clarify why if a function is implemented in a particular way, it 
breaks things. The document needs to go beyond "this is evil" and 
explain what problems you can expect if you implement things in that way.

2) provide input to the community so that we know which functions cannot 
be implemented with the current SIP toolbox. We may need to come up with 
extensions for those functions.

It may also be possible that a particular function can be implemented in 
a friendly way and in an unfriendly way. We may need to point out the 
advantages of choosing the former way.

 > What I want is a document that is a requirements document on the problems
 > that people want to solve that they currently solve using a SBC. This 
would
 > be informational

Yes, we seem to be on the same page. I want to know which functions are 
implemented in a way that breaks SIP. You want to know which problems 
are resolved in a way that breaks SIP. Two different ways of saying the 
same thing.

In any case, if seems obvious that the terminology currently used in the 
draft is confusing. We will try and clarify its scope further in the 
next revision of the draft.

Thanks,

Gonzalo



Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> When this draft was started, my recollection was that the purpose was
> 
>    This document gives an overview to Session Border Controllers (SBCs)
>    and to the functions they perform.  The way how SBCs relate to the
>    telecommunication architectures is also presented.  The purpose of
>    this document is to help the IETF community understand what
>    functionality existing SBCs provide so that the appropriate working
>    groups can decide whether or not new standard solutions need to be
>    developed to provide such functionality (or a subset of it) in a
>    standard way.
> 
> I like that idea - we need to develop requirements and understanding of why
> SBCs are used. Many people felt that we did not want to repeat the path 
> that
> IETF did with NATs that eventually resulted in the behave group.
> 
> However, the document seem to be moving in the direction of 1) assuming
> specific ways to build SBC that may or may not reflect how they are all
> build 2) turning into a B2BUA are evil documentation which right or wrong,
> is not what I was hoping to get out of this document
> 
> What I want is a document that is a requirements document on the problems
> that people want to solve that they currently solve using a SBC. This would
> be informational - the BCP discussion leaves me feeling very unclear on 
> what
> the purpose of this document is.
> 
> So my questions is - what is the purpose of this document? I recognize 
> it is
> individual and that as it was written, the authors may have changed it's
> purpose over time.
> 
> Cullen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
> This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
> Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
> Use [e-mail] for new developments of core SIP
> 

-- 
Gonzalo Camarillo         Phone :  [phone]
Oy L M Ericsson Ab        Mobile:  [phone]
Telecom R&D               Fax   :  [phone]
FIN-02420 Jorvas          Email :  [e-mail]
Finland                   http://www.hut.fi/~gonzalo

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments of core SIP