Subject: RE: [Sip-security] Re: Proxy routed requirements in draft-thomas- sip-sec-framework-00.txt

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:30:05 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 7:16 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sip-security] Re: Proxy routed requirements in
> draft-thomas-sip-sec-framework-00.txt
> 
> 
> 
> Also, in 3.2.5 you talk about the case for
> non-adjacent proxies, and wonder if there is
> any need for security measures in this
> interface. My comment on this is that
> protocol-wise you wouldn't even know if
> someone who e.g. sent some protected bits
> to you was a proxy or an end-node. So,
> if we provide tools to get security on the
> user->intermediate interface, then non-adjacent
> proxies can take advantage of the same
> mechanisms. 

Not necessarily. There are things a UA can do that a proxy can't (like
initiate a request). Thus, certain SIP mechanisms that you would be able to
do with a UA won't work to a proxy.

-Jonathan R.

---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Sip-security mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-security