[VOIPSEC] FYI - IETF seeking comment on requirements for SBC functionality... Fwd: Last Call: draft-ietf-sipping-sbc-funcs (Requirements from SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) Session Border Control Deployments) to Informational RFC

[Chris Boulton]

The whole thing is a slippery definition, though

[Chris Boulton] Totally agreed that it's slippery :-).

 -- should a SIP network element that removes a codec from the SDP, and
does nothing else, really be considered a B2BUA.

[Chris Boulton] Its hard to be definitive BUT IMHO 'no', this should be
considered a miss-behaving proxy.  As the only high level definition of
a B2BUA we have is that it is two clients that have been glued together
- so you should see such properties as unique dialog identifiers. 

  Afterall, it can
remove the codec and remain stateless, and statefulness is one of tests
of a B2BUA (modifying the body is another test).

[Chris Boulton] 100% agreed.

-d