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

From: "Mark Watson"<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:31:54 +0100

> > 3) Untrustworthy RPID: I think Flemming and Bill have demonstrated the
utility of
> > 'untrustworthy identity', and indeed this is what the From field already
provides. But From
> > just provides the users assertion. If a network has asserted additional
identity information, 
> > why should the user should be denied this ?
> [Peterson, Jon] This is a line of reasoning we seem to come back to
repeatedly that really 
> confuses me. RPID exists to provide call trace, not Caller-ID, right? It
allows the network to 
> carry an identity when the user wishes to remain anonymous, when they
don't want to display 
> heir identity to the other party in the dialog. If the network asserts
identity information, I 
> don't think that information is intended to be displayed to the user - so
the user should 
> actually be denied this information, right?

I think there is an ambition to use RPID for Caller ID as well as for Call
Trace. In particular, when interworking with the PSTN, the CLI needs to be
Network asserted - user asserted identity in the From field will not do.
This CLI is then used for both call trace and caller display.

Just as in the PSTN, displaying the network asserted identity at a SIP UA
will give the called party greater confidence in the identity - at least
their confidence should be as great as the confidence they have in the
network entity from which they received the message.

Alternatively, you could provide a way to indicate that the value in the
From field really does represent the identity of the caller (i.e. is valid
for the user who authenticated). Either the proxy ascertaining this could
sign it, or within a trust domain, it could be passed forwards as a simple
indication attached to the From field. Somehow I'm not sure you'll like
this!

...Mark

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 12:27:16 -0500

Mark Watson wrote:

>
>
> > > 3) Untrustworthy RPID: I think Flemming and Bill have demonstrated
> the utility of
> > > 'untrustworthy identity', and indeed this is what the From field
> already provides. But From
> > > just provides the users assertion. If a network has asserted
> additional identity information,
> > confuses me. RPID exists to provide call trace, not Caller-ID,
> right? It allows the network to
> > carry an identity when the user wishes to remain anonymous, when
> they don't want to display
> > heir identity to the other party in the dialog. If the network
> asserts identity information, I
> > don't think that information is intended to be displayed to the user
> - so the user should
> I think there is an ambition to use RPID for Caller ID as well as for
> Call Trace.

Right - the second paragraph in Section 4 even explains this.

-- Flemming

_______________________________________________
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