Subject: [Sipping] draft-ietf-sipping-udate-pai-00 - open issue 1

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:01:01 +0000

A comment I received on the previous draft
(draft-elwell-sipping-update-pai-02) was whether to allow
P-Asserted-Identity in a REGISTER request, between an edge proxy that
authenticates the UA and a registrar.

Any opinions?

Depending on the answer, a secondary consideration is whether
P-Preferred-Identity is applicable on the first hop of a REGISTER
request.

John
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:26:56 -0500

IMO this is perfectly reasonable usage. Imposing restrictions here is 
overreaching on the part of the proxy. It ought to be in the business of 
routing and figuring out the authentication. The registrar should be in 
the business of deciding whether to honor the PAI.

	Paul

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:34:17 -0500

I think I made that original comment so I certainly agree.

I think the original RFC3325 wording here was based on the architectural 
model of IMS where this is not needed, rather than the more general SIP 
proxy usage we have here.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   499 Thornall St.
Cisco Fellow                                   Edison, NJ 08837
Cisco, Voice Technology Group
[email-masked]
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (408) 902-3084
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:18:09 +0200

Hi,

it would be good to have explicit text in the draft saying whether the 
applicability statement in RFC 3325 still holds or the draft updates it 
somehow.

Cheers,

Gonzalo