Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: Question on draft-ietf-sip-asserted-identity-02

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:56:12 EDT

In a message dated 10/23/2002 5:41:00 AM W. Europe Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> We make no provision in any of these privacy/identity drafts, as far as I
> can recall for cases in which a privacy service has policies that preclude
> user requests for privacy. This would be comparable to the telephone network
> rejecting your attempt to dial *67. Personally, I am not interested in
> standardizing any case in which a privacy service with the relevant
> capabilities would purposefully refuse to fulfill a user's request for
> privacy. I suppose that if you were to implement this as a non-standard
> mechanism, your option (a) would be vastly preferable (and would follow the
> spirit of Section 5 of the privacy draft).
> 

[MAP] I'm not sure if it is an example of what you referred to as "the 
telephone network rejecting your attempt to dial *67", but today, dialing *67 
should have no effect on the delivery of the calling identity to the other 
end when you dial an "800" number or 911 in the US.

In addition, I remember some years ago that the PUC in Florida approved the 
assignment of a special office code that would override the originator's 
request for privacy when they dialed *67 followed by a number in that office 
code. It was just a regular looking telephone number (not something 
recognizable like 800) that would always get the calling line ID. And it was 
not intended specifically for police departments, etc. In this case, the 
calling user's request for "privacy" was ignored.

These are not cases in which the privacy service refuses to fulfil the user's 
request or rejects the *67, but rather, ones in which some other service 
takes precedence. Is the "asserted identity" draft taking these types of 
cases into account?

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:32:33 -0700

The privacy provided by this system is only as good in as much as you can
trust the provider providing the privacy service. Let me explain this
confusing statement. Say I, fluffy, have a SIP phone. I have some sort of
subscriber contract with service.com. I set my outbound proxy to service.com
and send them a call and request privacy. Regardless of what number I
dialed, service.com can choose to do anything they want with this
information. The only thing I can do is take legal action if they do
something other than what my contract with them says they will do. I would
hope that my contract would say that they would always anonymize the call
and if that was not legally possible they would reject it and the only
exception to this would be a E911 call. I can easily imagine it will say
they make no guarantees about ever anonymizing anything and if it happened
to work you got lucky and all the liability of this was yours and if you
ever sued them they got to take your first born.

Cullen

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 5:56 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: Question on draft-ietf-sip-asserted-identity-02

[MAP] I'm not sure if it is an example of what you referred to as "the
telephone network rejecting your attempt to dial *67", but today, dialing
*67 should have no effect on the delivery of the calling identity to the
other end when you dial an "800" number or 911 in the US.

These are not cases in which the privacy service refuses to fulfil the
user's request or rejects the *67, but rather, ones in which some other
service takes precedence. Is the "asserted identity" draft taking these
types of cases into account?

Mike Pierce
Artel

_______________________________________________
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