Subject: [Sipping] sipping-sip-arch-00

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:37:26 -0800

I like this. One topic that comes to mind is that the relationship between
proxies and registrars is not really very well defined. I don't recall
seeing it in 3261 and it seems a little hand wavy here too.

I think of the registrars being the critical part of the rendezvous
function, not the proxies, though I understand both are needed. In practice,
they seem to be implemented together. I bring this up because much of the
discussion around Availability / Scalability is not quite a true for
registrars.

The topic of forking and HERFP also seems worth discussing.

At the end of section 4.1 the language around proxies looking at messages
seems vague. I think proxies can count on viewing the headers but I don't
think they can rely on seeing the bodies. 3321 is pretty clear on it would
like to be able to use strong security if possible.

The last sentence in section 4.3 is also something I wonder about. There has
been much assertion of this but really little assertion about why it needs
to be this way. Practically speaking when the components in a single domain
are build by multiple vendors this is still difficult. I think it would be
worth discussing here why this is so important (and I don't know the answer
to that) and some of the exceptions such as the SOS aor.

In section 4.8 you mention 1500 bytes. I'm not really sure that is true
these days. Vendor that made devices with 1500 byte limits had horrible
problems with that and all the ones I was aware of went and fixed it. SIP
does not really work with a 1500 byte limit. I think it is difficult to
bound any particular number here.

Cullen

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