Subject: RE: [Speermint] Speermint Charter (now re SBCs)

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:40:54 -0400

> To your question of "does it matter if they go through SBCs 
> for our work?"
> So, to your actual question: it depends.  If the end goal of 
> this WG is to define BCPs of call flows for peering, then 
> that's easy: someone can just send an ethereal trace. :)  If 
> it's to define best future (vs.
> current/common) practices, then yes it may hit issues if the 
> reality (from my perspective) isn't taken into account.  It's 
> like talking about IP peering without acknowledging routers 
> exist.  The irony from my perspective is what SBCs do 
> "differently" is used by many for very valuable 
> peering-related benefits.

I suspect this issue will continue to arise every so often as it has
before (which is okay, by the way; continued discussion is generally a
signal of a lack of consensus).  IMHO, the architecture and BCPs
proposed will need to show how you can do SIP peering without and with
session border elements.  There are some domains that will not want to
use them, and some that will want to use them.  And even where a domain
prefers to use such an element, it may be application-specific such that
it is perhaps used for SIP-VoIP but not for SIP-IM.  

Anyway, I think the point is that I don't expect we'll try to dictate
that session border elements absolutely must or must not be used.  For
some domains with particular requirements (business, IP networking, IP
addressing, whatever), for some applications, such elements may make
sense and may be considered.  For those that feel strongly about the
fact that use of such elements are not a good trend, we should be able
to spell out how a domain can meet all of their requirements and deploy
a SIP peering architecture without them if they so choose (and so we'll
ask for your constructive assistance on such work).  Thus, we first
describe requirements, then we describe all of the different
architecture options that would accomodate those requirements, and then
implementers better understand all of the issues and can make decisions
based on this expert information as well as their own particular needs.

Jason

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint

---

From: "Hadriel Kaplan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 12:42:20 -0400

Of course I agree.  I would never expect that SBCs be mandated by any IETF
work, nor that they be the starting point; nor could they be from a
political perspective.  I only raised it because Brian asked if we should
care about them for the WG's work.  That would only be the case if the WG
mandated something that wouldn't work with SBCs. :)  That's very different
than mandating they be used, or starting with them in the picture - it's
really only about keeping an eye on what's being defined to be as broadly
applicable as possible.

-hadriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:41 AM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
> Cc: [email-masked]; David Meyer
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] Speermint Charter (now re SBCs)
> 
>