Subject: RE: [Sip] Network Asserted Identity

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 13:31:07 -0400

I like Network Asserted ID best
NA From is okay, but if we DO decide to allow an NAI on a Reply To, for
example, 
we would need an NA-Reply-To, which has it's plusses and minuses
Network-From has the same problem Asserted-Indentity is okay, 
but not as nice a Network Asserted ID

On the hint, I don't understand why From isn't the hint.  Could you explain?
Assuming there is a good reason, I'd use the same header name.  
That kind of makes Asserted-Identity a better choice.

Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Watson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:42 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [Sip] Network Asserted Identity

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 

_______________________________________________
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: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:07:13 +0300

> That kind of makes Asserted-Identity a better choice.

if the user wants to be anonymous, then from can't contain a hint.  if
from is not anonymous, then from can and for backwards compatibility
reasons SHOULD be considered a hint in the absence of a nai header.

-- juha

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 14:08:53 -0500

> On the hint, I don't understand why From isn't the hint.  
> Could you explain? Assuming there is a good reason, I'd use 
> the same header name.  

From: isn't the hint because there may need to be network assertion of
identity even when there is a privacy request from the user. Unless we
want proxies munging From: (insert my many arguments here) then the hint
needs to be in another place that CAN be proxy-munged. This leaves the
UA responsible for its From: field (sets "anonymous" or equiavelent if
privacy required) which is cleaner and has better
backward-compatibility.

I like "Asserted-Identity", as future techniques lets us say WHO
asserted the identity, and it might be "the network", the user, or a
third-party authentication service.

--
Dean