Subject: [Simple] Issue 4: Recipient of IMDN can appear different than sender

From: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:24:51 -0500

To enable scenarios where the "sender" of an IM has a generic address,
like "sip:[email-masked]", but the user sending the IM has a specific
address, like "sip:[email-masked]", as well as to keep
state out of B2BUA's and relays, the draft has an explicit
Disposition-Notification-To header, with the address for the UAS to send
the report to.

This has the potential for a bad UAC to IMDN-bomb an unsuspecting
third-party.  Thus the draft has a bunch of protocol machinery for the
UAS to ensure identity of the requestor, if only to enable Level 8
handling of the problem.

OK with everyone?

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 20:05:46 +0100

I think having that header is ok. But the reason you give about keeping 
state out of the B2BUAs and relays is not a good reason. Often enough 
B2BUAs need to be involved in the MDN generation, but thats a topic for 
a different thread.

Hisham

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:55:10 -0800

I actually lean towards not having a separate notification-to header.  
I think it creates more problems than value.

On Nov 7, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Hisham Khartabil wrote:

> I think having that header is ok. But the reason you give about  
> keeping state out of the B2BUAs and relays is not a good reason.  
> Often enough B2BUAs need to be involved in the MDN generation, but  
> thats a topic for a different thread.
>
> Hisham
>