Subject: [Iptel] Re: draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-03.txt

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:28:51 -0500

Rohan,

Did you intend this as an *alternative* to the proposed P-CPC 
parameter??? Or do you intend them to coexist and be used in different 
contexts?

This draft isn't necessarily limited to sip, so I suppose usage 
conventions for sip may be out of scope, but I think there are some 
questions that need answering in that regard.

- Section 3 says this should be "applied to URIs that characterize the 
originator of a call". Typically this will also be the identity used to 
provide "callerid". Should these attributes be displayed as part of the 
callerid?

- a uri with parameters doesn't compare equal to one without. When call 
screening based on a black or white list of URIs, must that list be 
populated with the correct attributes?

- When used with P-Asserted-ID, if Privacy is *not* invoked, so that the 
P-A-ID header is passed to the callee, should these parameters be 
removed? If so, what would give the terminating proxy, that isn't 
responsible for this address, the right to make such a change?

- what happens if the police are originating a call with an identity 
that can only be represented as a sip uri? (E.g. sip:[email-masked])

IMO these are roles of the identity, not part of the identity.

	Paul

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:53:25 -0800

>From memory, I may have this wrong ....

I think that awhile back, the WG decided Rohan should proceed with this as
an individual submission.

Cullen