Re: [sr-dev] RFC 5626 (Outbound) planned?

b2buas are not really defined so they can be intrusive and bad or a good thing depending on what you need. In my experience, my company's product could not provide some cool features to our customers without a b2bua as sems. For me, it offers topoh hiding, response mapping, codec filtering, session timers, some accounting stuff, session duration limit and some sbc capabilities. I agree that I would like to see the inteligence at endpoint level but that's not true life. So yes, b2buas are necesary for me at this point.

As Ole mentioned and I discussed with him last week, ICE may break LI (lawful interception) requirements for some vendors. It needs some switch to be able to disable it when LI is required.

Because we're in closed networks. This is becoming more important each day as federation, internet users and mobile device users come to the SIP world. The TLS and SRTP/ZRTP requirements from my customers has increased this year 1000%

Open SIP to the internet. Yes. Open which is already in place. SIP in internet from scratch is a no go. Google talk, Skype and Facebook (with Skype integration or whatever) have thousands of millions of users in advantage. But if you start opening the wallet gardens, you'll start with millions of users that don't know they already use SIP and corporate customers which means money behind the protocol. You need to play poker with the cards you've been given. Must work: yes. I would drop the whole SIMPLE specification (all the RFCs) to have some really functional. As it is now we won't have any compatible federated presence mechanism ever.

Must be safe: Agree. No doubts here. btw: This is becoming a mayor OT for this list, isn't it?