SIP Conventions for UAs with Outbound Only Connections
draft-jennings-sipping-outbound-01
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Cullen Fluffy Jennings , Alan Hawrylyshen | ||
| Last updated | 2005-07-22 (Latest revision 2005-02-22) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-sip-outbound | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-sip-outbound | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Often with SIP a request can only be routed over an existing connection or flow, such as when there is a firewall or network address translation (NAT) device in the network path. TLS is also affected when the user agent (UA) does not have a certificate suitable for mutual TLS authentication. This draft addresses how user agents and proxies need to behave to work in these environments. This work shows how existing SIP mechanisms can be used to allow the UA to register multiple times over different connections or flows and the proxies can use the instance-id in the contact header to identify that the multiple flows go to the same UA. It can then choose which flow to use to route requests to this UA.
Authors
Cullen Fluffy Jennings
Alan Hawrylyshen
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)