Subject: [Sip] Network Asserted Identity

From: "Mark Watson"<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 17:42:20 +0100

All,

Revision of the requirements draft coming soon.

In the meantime there are two issues which we did not completely bottom out
at the meeting. It would be good if we could conclude on these asap,
particularly as 3GPP has a meeting next week at which I hope they will
incorporate this new IETF work into their spec.

> 1) Name of the identity header
> 
The following have been suggested:
	Network-Asserted-ID:
	Authenticated-Identity:
	NA-From:
	Network-From:
	Asserted-Identity:
	others ?

Comments on these are:
	Network-Asserted-ID has an acronym clash with Network Access
Identity from AAA.
	Authenticated-Identity is not appropriate use of the term
'Authenticated' as the identity is not actually accompanied by a signature
	Asserted-Identity: what is an 'unasserted' identity ?

Suggestions & votes please! (If you vote in order of preference I can do a
Single Transferable Vote election).

> 2) UA 'hint' to authenticating proxy 
> 
One of the 3GPP requirements was for the UA to be able to supply a 'hint' to
the Authenticating Proxy in the case that the UA has several identities.
i.e. the UA could choose from several possible NAIs. Cullen's draft proposes
that the same header be used for this purpose. If there are objections to
this please speak now!! The alternative would presumably be a P-Header for
this.

> Regards...Mark

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 20:40:22 +0300

> this please speak now!! The alternative would presumably be a P-Header for

the same header is fine with me, but i made several comments on the
procedures at the proxy regarding the hint and i only got feedback
privately.  my main point was that if the user has several valid from
identities, it MUST give a hint, because the proxy has no way to know
which one it should pick.

-- juha

_______________________________________________
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: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 21:48:00 -0700

I promised Dean to capture one bit of the minutes - this is it :-)

There was considerable discussion about privacy and identity stuff at the
interim meeting. At the time we were using the terms short term and long
term to describe the proposals.  A better description to separate the two
would be cryptographic and non-cryptographic approach.

The proposal from Jon, Mark, and I is to go forward by looking at a solution
that is something along the lines of:

1) Have a header called something like Asserted-Identity
2) In the non cryptographic solution, this header could appear in the header
portion of the message
3) In the cryptographic solution, this header could be used in signed and
encrypted sipfrags in the body of the message

We need to carefully think about the implications of both the cryptographic
and non-cryptographic solution existing and what would happen as messages
were passed from a network element using one type to a network element using
the other type.

Cullen