Subject: FW: [Sip] Comment, SIP Privacy draft

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:44:14 -0600

Whoops, an edit to that last note (pasted wrong version). Insert this into
the middle.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

----

> So CLIP is easy.  And it is certainly dangerous to presume a http URL, 
> when the spec contains no such limit.

Well, let's talk about a reasonable interpretation. There are quite a few
examples of the use of Call-Info in the sip spec, all of which use HTTP
URLs. In fact, the 'minor functional changes' section says:

        o Added the Alert-Info, Error-Info, and Call-Info header fields
          for optional content presentation to users.

The motivation for Call-Info is not identity carriage, anyway.

The Call-Info header is a cousin of Alert-Info. Alert-Info is also proxy
'ar' in Table 2. It contains an example of an HTTP URL. That could also
contains arbitrary URIs which could in turn be used to carry identity in
place of traditional 'alerts'. Sure, the spec does not prevent Alert-Info
from containing SIP URIs. But we all would agree that this isn't a good use
of Alert-Info.

I think it takes a relatively hostile reading of Call-Info to suggest that
this is an appropriate usage.

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:20:22 -0500

> this is an appropriate usage.

No more hostile than to suggest that Remote-Party-Id is for user-asserted
identity, when both the title, applicability statement and the text throughout
specifically says that the draft does not deal with user authentication. The
fact that Remote-Party-Id *can* be used for this is another story, just like
Call-Info *can* be used for this.

-- Flemming