Subject: RE: [Sipping] calling number blocking at sip/isup gateway

From: "Mark Watson"<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:45:42 -0000

Dean Willis wrote:
> 
> Actually, I'm considering making a couple of suggestions on 
> improving the 
> utility of the draft, such as allowing for the representation 
> of multiple 
> identities, and providing transitive "vouching" for an 
> authenticable/authenticated identity.  
> 
> Perhaps we need also to consider a means of distinguishing a specific 
> identity as the preferred e.164 number so that gateways know 
> which identity 
> to map into ISUP. 
> 

I think this is all supposed to be there.

The R-P-ID header can be repeated with different types of identity for the
same party & identities for multiple parties.

The R-P-ID header includes an indication of whether the previous proxy
'vouches' for it's authenticity or not.

The original idea was that the UA included the information it wanted in the
R-P-ID (and of course, the UA claims that this is authentic). The first
proxy would then decide whether those identities were valid for that user
(based on subscription information) and if so, mark the R-P-ID headers as
verified. Otherwise the proxy marks the information as 'unverified'.

Assuming the next proxy has a trust relationship with the previous one (I
know the whole 'trust relationship' thing is a subject of debate - let's
keep them separate) then it knows which R-P-ID headers it can trust.

There are several identity types in the draft and 'subscriber' would be the
preferred one for mapping to the ISUP Calling Party Number. Again, in the
previous version of the draft 'alias' was included which would map to the
ISUP Additional Calling Party Number.

As I pointed out before, the changes between privacy-02 & 03 were made with
no list discussion, and (it's been pointed out to me) without consultation
with all the authors. I think the changes were based on a misunderstanding
that R-P-ID could or would be abused for authentication of the user, which
was never the intention.

I think the removal of the description of the a UA including R-P-ID - so
that it can choose from a number of identities which are valid for the
subscription - greatly reduces the utility of the draft and I propose we
re-introduce this aspect.

Regards,

Mark

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:06:43 -0500

Mark Watson wrote:

>
> As I pointed out before, the changes between privacy-02 & 03 were made
> with no list discussion,

They are just drafts with suggested text that in the end is up to the
Working Group to discuss, comment and get consensus on (all of which has
been largely lacking up until now).

> and (it's been pointed out to me) without consultation with all the
> authors. I think the changes were based on a misunderstanding that
> R-P-ID could or would be abused for authentication of the user, which
> was never the intention.

> I think the removal of the description of the a UA including R-P-ID -
> so that it can choose from a number of identities which are valid for
> the subscription - greatly reduces the utility of the draft and I
> propose we re-introduce this aspect.
>

That is the big scope question. The privacy-03 draft changed its scope
to only deal with "network authenticated identity information" without
getting any kind of detail about how the "network" might actully obtain
such identity information. The idea was/is, that this problem would be
solved by another draft (and using Remote-Party-ID for this purpose
would indeed be one option in such a draft).

-- Flemming

--
Flemming Andreasen
Cisco Systems

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.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