Subject: [sipcore] request for comments 8688

From: Eliot Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 06:12:17 -0800

hi,

there are industry groups representing callers and carriers actively
commenting on the appropriate sip response code to use in the case a call
is rejected based on an analytics engine.  these comments are in the fcc
consumer and governmental affairs bureau's sixth further notice of
proposed rulemaking in advanced methods to target and eliminate unlawful
robocalls docket no.17-59.
ECFS Filings Results (fcc.gov)
<https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?q=(%22robocalls%22)&sort=date_disseminated,DESC>

fcc originally proposed the use of sip response code 608 for calls blocked
based on an analytics engine but some carriers objected because of
alleged complexity.  some carriers asserted that sip response code 603 was
good enough.

fcc has relented to permit sip code 603 to be used for an undefined period
in addition to 608.

i responded that sip response code 603 is only for user call rejection.
<https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10214644920309/rms%20USTelecom%20-%20Comments%20on%20Blocking%20Notification%20Sixth%20FNPRM%20-%20Final.pdf>
rfc 3261 states "The callees's machine was successfully contacted but the
user explicitly does not wish to or cannot participate..." it is confusing
to use sip code 603 (user rejection) and stating in a header field it is
not user rejection but analytics engine rejection.  this is like saying i
want vanilla ice cream but what i really want is chocolate ice cream.

will ietf consider these fcc proposals and industry comments and respond
with appropriate informational or standards track rfc?

many thanks to the ietf for making sip a reality.

eliot

-- 
Eliot Steele Robinson
Robinson Management Service
4290 Bella Cascada Street
Las Vegas, NV 89135-2436
702-960-2463 (cell) 702-330-9921 (fax)
[email-masked]
https://www.RobinsonManagementService.com
DUNS 079879598 CAGE 7EEU6 JCP 0073645