Folks,

You may recall that during the Shenzhen meeting, I said that I would take an action item to "suggest" to Q17/16 that perhaps they might want to more formally define an SBC. Well, they actually are. They are not referring to it as an SBC and, given that I think the device could be used as an functional element within the service provider domain, perhaps the terminology they're using is appropriate. In any case, I thought I would bring your attention to their most recent draft text, in case you have not seen it:

http://ties.itu.int/u/tsg16/sg16/xchange/wp1/Stable_Text/GIP2IP/G.IP2IP-ver- 1.6a.doc

Paul