> -----Original Message----- > From: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf > Of Paul Kyzivat > Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 3:43 PM > > I see a lot of issues raised about UAs using media they are not being > charged for. As Tom Taylor said, this is not a new argument, or unique > to this situation. There is always the possibility that two UAs will > attempt to communicate using media they did not signal in an obvious way > in the signaling channel. If they succeed in doing so, it is presumably > because they are using a media path that they have access to independent > of the signaling. In that case the intermediary who feels it should be > charging for this is simply hoping to charge for a service it is not > providing, and so has no real grievance. > > The case where this might be a real problem is if a middlebox controls > the media path (what resources are assigned, and whether media is / > isn't permitted to flow), and yet the rules about session state are such > that the middlebox and the endpoints have differing understandings of > whether the active session includes a given media path or not. IMO that > is the key issue that needs to be nailed down. +1 -hadriel _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
