be explicit this is not a generic proxy discovery mechanism + IPv6#354
be explicit this is not a generic proxy discovery mechanism + IPv6#354boucadair wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
| associated with a proxy, such as other proxy URIs that support different protocols | ||
| and information about which destinations are accessible using a proxy. | ||
| and information about which destinations are accessible using a proxy. Note that this | ||
| mechanism is not intended to be used as a generic method for any type of proxies (SIP, etc.). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this is correct to state. SIP proxies are configurable via URLs (see example).
SIP proxies could be easily added to Table 2 (Initial PvD Proxy Protocol Registry Contents).
I'm not aware of any types of proxies that would not be appropriate to advertise in this mechanism.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are already existing mechanisms to configure such proxies. I'm concerned that we are adding yet another mechanisms to discover these services. If we focus on SIP, do we have an operational problem todat to provision these services? What about conflict of various discovery channels, etc.
The pb you had in the draft (PAC, limitations etc.) was reasonable as it is seemed to me that it targeted a very specific set of proxies.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not suggesting that people use this instead of other mechanisms specifically for SIP, but there is no inherent limitation here that would make this mechanism inappropriate for SIP discovery. There's not a limited set of proxies.
| and security vulnerabilities. However, the mechanism is applicable only when an IPv6 | ||
| connectivity is provided. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not correct — nothing in sections 2-4 has any requirement for clients to have IPv6 connectivity. In section 5, the "out of scope" mechanism we refer to does require being able to receive RAs, but that doesn't require non-link-local connectivity over IPv6 to work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm may be missing something, but I understood PvD Additional Information as defined in rfc8801#section-4. I need to recheck the text.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, the PvD Additional Information is not specific to IPv6.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can only second Tommy's point:
hat doesn't require non-link-local connectivity over IPv6 to work.
3 participants
No description provided.