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

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:43:53 -0800

> > I think we should be careful not to confuse 'scope' - what the
> > mechanism actually does/solves - with 'applicability' - environments
> > in which it actually works to provide this.
> >
> 
> Yes, yes, and yes.

This should give us a first point of consensus. The draft is about
providing caller identification, which generally leads to compromising
the caller privacy -- you are definitely less private if the network
identifies you that if it does not. Naming such a draft a "privacy
draft" is Orwellian newspeak. So, let's call it "caller-identification
draft" and resolve at least the name part issue.

> > What is needed is:
> > a) A way for network entities to assert 'private' identities, in the
> > case that To/From have been obfuscated due to privacy requirements
> >
> > b) A way for users to request that privacy be applied to their
> > identity, whilst also allowing the user to indicate their desired
> > identity to the network

Yes, let's work on an actual privacy draft.

-- Christian Huitema

_______________________________________________
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: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:53:19 -0500

> draft" and resolve at least the name part issue.

OK, but it still needs to address "privacy" for such caller-id and enable
call trace.

> Yes, let's work on an actual privacy draft.

Are you thereby suggesting that the "caller-id" draft should not address any
kind of privacy beyond the Remote-Party-Id (e.g. inserting
"anonymous@localhost" in the From header field) and hence not be concerned
with a more general privacy solution ?

-- Flemming

--
Flemming Andreasen
Cisco Systems