Subject: RE: Summary of RE: [Sip] Comment, SIP Privacy draft

From: "Mark Watson"<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:32:13 +0100

Ben,
 
The user and the subscriber are not the same.
 
See
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/sip/current/msg04720.html
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/sip/current/msg04720.html>
for an explanation from earlier today.
 
...Mark

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:23:12 -0500

MessageOK, in that case I would expect the subscriber profile to have an
optional entry indicating that only anonymous calls were allowed. If some
user (the subscriber or otherwise) then tries to make a non-anonymous call,
it gets rejected.

It also makes sense that a well crafted UA that supported anonymous calling
would have an option to always be anonymous, to avoid the usual cycle of try
non-anonymous, fail, then try again with anonymous.

I don't see why this is any different than any other rejection due to a
policy violation.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Mark Watson [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 12:32 PM
  To: 'Ben Campbell'; Chiou, Mark; Dean Willis; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
  Subject: RE: Summary of RE: [Sip] Comment, SIP Privacy draft

  Ben,

  See

  ...Mark