Re: [straw] draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy: decomposed gateway model and media plane b2bua types
2013-06-19 11:19:54 GMT
Hello Christer, Hadriel,
I don't want to delay the publication.
Don't see any principle issue, too.
In case of a future revision of this RFC, then it might be beneficial to try to add a term definition for B2BUA (because the whole taxonomy is actually based on this term).
2nd I suppose a difference between B2BUA vs PROXY, hence might be worth as well to point out differences.
Personally, I could see following resolution proposal (based on ITU terms):
Background: the subject as such was studied in Y.1251 (http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-Y.1251-200208-I!!PDF-E&type=items ).
Possible definition of term “B2BUA”:
B2BUA: provides a service interworking function (according clause 3.2/ITU-T Y.1251) with following limitations,
1. network planes: only IP control and IP user plane;
2. protocol stack: same protocol at each side of the service interworking function.
NOTE 1: hence, a B2BUA is not a proxy.
Proxy (derived from ITU-T Y.2902): A system authorized to work on behalf of another system including responding to protocol requests.
NOTE 1: hence, a proxy does not provide any interworking function (neither service interworking nor network interworking).
NOTE 2: a proxy as network element is an intermediary node in the sense of identical protocol stacks at incoming and outgoing interfaces of the proxy.
SIP B2BUA: provides a B2BUA function with for the SIP, i.e., a service interworking function (according clause 3.2/ITU-T Y.1251) in the IP control plane.
NOTE: the service interworking function may include as well the interworking of the protocol stack for SIP transport (e.g., SIP-over-UDP/IP4 to SIP-over-SCTP/IPv6 interworking).
… and then subsequent, derived term definitions for
media plane B2BUA
back-to-back IP host
Just some thoughts,
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg <at> ericsson.com]
Sent: Sonntag, 16. Juni 2013 11:04
To: Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht); Hadriel Kaplan; <straw <at> ietf.org>
Subject: VS: [straw] draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy: decomposed gateway model and media plane b2bua types
I do appreciate the fact that you have taken a look at the draft, and studied its applicability from a SG16 perspective.
In the conclusion part, you ask whether there is a need to provide feedback to STRAW.
Keep in mind that the WGLC for the draft has finished, and that publication has been requested by the chairs.
Now, that does not prevent us from taking the draft back to the WG, and do changes, but in order for that to happen there normally has to be some issues that need to be changed/addressed in order to publish the document as an RFC.
Lähetetty: 16. kesäkuuta 2013 8:13
Vastaanottaja: Hadriel Kaplan; <straw <at> ietf.org>
Aihe: [straw] draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy: decomposed gateway model and media plane b2bua types
fyi, some high-level comments to the taxonomy draft from perspective of decomposed SBCs (according H.248 model) http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2013-2016/1306_Osl/AVD-4391.zip
straw mailing list
_______________________________________________ Megaco mailing list Megaco <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco