[Sipping] Transcoding and route entries

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

during the SIPPING session, I presented the following draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-sipping-transc-b2bua-01.txt

We discussed whether or not it is appropriate to use Route headers to 
introduce a B2BUA in the path. The two options are:

A and B are the UAs, and T is the transcoder, which is a B2BUA

-----     -----     -----
| A |-----| T |-----| B |
-----     -----     -----

1) Without using Route

INVITE T
Body: B

2) Using Route

INVITE B
Route T


Reasons for using option 1:

- T is behaving as a conference server, so we should invoke it in the 
same way as we invoke a conference.
- Route headers are intended for proxies, not for B2BUAs.
- If we start using Route headers to invoke B2BUAs, what is the meaning 
of e2e or e2m security? T would be the recipient of the headers in the 
message, but T would not appear in the Request-URI...

Reasons for using option 2:
- sessions with and without transcoder are invoked in the same way.

I would like to hear your opinions. Mine is that we should go for option 1.

Thanks,

Gonzalo


This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.

E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.


_______________________________________________
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