Subject: RE: [Sipping] Consent Framework Issue

From: "Andrew Allen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:15:13 -0400

Gonzalo,

I don't think the white list case is exactly the same.

If you have a white list then you specifically exclude everyone unless
they have a specific URI match. This is your choice if you don't want
anyone except a minimum set of people to contact you or contact you in a
certain way and if they use another identity to contact you then you
accept that they will be blocked. White lists are by nature highly
restrictive and if you want to have other people be able to contact you
then normally you would have a way of still being contacted (such as
routing the blocked invitation to voicemail or by having those not on
the white list contact you in another way). For example in PoC white
lists do exist but they just prevent someone not on the list being able
to request automatic answer of a PoC Session.

I think white lists should be used sensibility and generally black lists
are a better idea. However regardless this is the called party's
decision to restrict access.

The Consent framework however creates a barrier in the calling party's
domain which effectively blocks them from easily transferring their
existing contact lists to another domain. All their contacts are blocked
until they are reauthorized on the Consent list which will take a lot of
manual effort and could take weeks or even months to completely resolve.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:09 AM
To: Andrew Allen
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Consent Framework Issue

Hi Andrew,

> If identity is the key then it is consent that creates the deadbolts 
> for the lock that requires me to keep the same key to prevent me 
> being locked out from service - that is the really evil thing.

not at all. If I have your SIP URI in my UA's white list and you change
your SIP URI, you will have to inform me so that I add you to my white
list again... and this happens without using consent.

What you are looking for, as Dean suggested, is an entity that certifies
that your new SIP URI belongs to the same person as your old URI. And
that has nothing to do with consent either.

In the presence of such an entity (e.g., a CA in a PKI), the permissions

could be transferred between trusted relays.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

_______________________________________________
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

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:25:55 +0300

Hi Andrew

 > White lists are by nature highly
> the white list contact you in another way).

In consent you are contacted with an instant message.

> decision to restrict access.

Back lists are of little use when getting a new identity is relatively easy.

> manual effort and could take weeks or even months to completely resolve.

It requires that the callee responds to an instant message. This hardly 
qualifies as "a lot of manual effort". When I log in into my IM system, 
I sometimes am asked if I want to authorize a new user to send me IMs. 
This happens all the time and has not been a problem so far. If I am 
using MSN and I move to Yahoo, for instance, I will need to do this 
since my identity will change.

Cheers,

Gonzalo