Subject: [stir] stir-06: Updating 3261, or B2BUA's?

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:15:57 -0500

Section 6.1.1 states:
   Practically, entities that perform the authentication
   service role will sometimes alter the telephone numbers that appear
   in the To and From header field values, converting them to this
   format (though note this is not a function that [RFC3261] permits
   proxy servers to perform).

 Are we saying that we are updating 3261 by this spec (because this specification would violate RFC 3261), or that we are specifying B2BUAs, not proxies?

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:40:51 -0500

>   Are we saying that we are updating 3261 by this spec (because this specification would violate RFC 3261), or that we are specifying B2BUAs, not proxies?

This specification doesn't violate 3261 if such alteration is done by a 
B2BUA. So this doesn't *need* to update 3261.

BUT, it is worth discussing if we *want* to allow proxies to be allowed 
to perform such alteration.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:55:44 +0000

We certainly are not updating RFC3261, we are just acknowledging that
B2BUAs that modify To and From exist, without necessarily endorsing those
practices. The authentication service role is designed to be performed by
an RFC3261-compliant proxy server, but non RFC3261-compliant entities can
(and probably will) perform this role as well.

This is why we have to be careful to call the authentication service a
role, not an entity.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 12/11/15, 7:40 AM, "stir on behalf of Paul Kyzivat"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>>   Are we saying that we are updating 3261 by this spec (because this
>>specification would violate RFC 3261), or that we are specifying B2BUAs,
>>not proxies?
>
>_______________________________________________
>stir mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir