Subject: Re: Problem 4 of RE: [Sip] Proposed plan for Network-Asserted ID/Privacy

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 16:32:14 -0700

Juha,

>Mark Watson writes:
> > I diagree. Solve the other problems first. Then we have 
three choices:
> > 1) Use the same header for the 'hints'
> > 2) Define another header for the 'hints'
> > 3) Assume the 'hint' in in the authentication 'username'
>
>(3) doesn't work.  my username is [email-masked], but my from 
uri that i
>want to use, can be, for example, tel+358441234567.

I'm suggesting that in order to solve this problem, one 
choice (3) is that we can make these proxies smart enough 
that they can accept [email-masked] or +358441234567 in the 
username field, and understand that these two things refer to 
the same user.

thanks,
-rohan

_______________________________________________
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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 07:52:14 +0300

> username field, and understand that these two things refer to 

the point that i wanted to make is that my "username" is totally
separate from my "from uri" and that BOTH exist in the invite that i
send.  when my sip/pstn gw forwards the invite to pstn, the network must
verify that the "from uri" really belongs to me as identified by the
username.

-- juha

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 11:48:25 -0500

> the point that i wanted to make is that my "username" is 
> totally separate from my "from uri" and that BOTH exist in 
> the invite that i send.  when my sip/pstn gw forwards the 
> invite to pstn, the network must verify that the "from uri" 
> really belongs to me as identified by the username.

That's sort of a quirk in your gateway -- it maps From: to
calling-party-ID. Most gateways work that way today. They won't
necessarily do so in the future.

It COULD map "Username" from an authorization header to
calling-party-ID. It also COULD generate the challenge to get an
appropriate authorization header back. That may not be the "right" way
to do it, but that's what we're talking about here -- finding the
"right" way to go forward.

--
Dean

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:20:59 +0300

Dean Willis writes:

 > calling-party-ID. 

no it could not because the user may have any number of calling party
numbers belong to different area codes and even different countries.
the user thus definitely needs to be able to control the calling party
id.

 > It also COULD generate the challenge to get an
 > appropriate authorization header back. 

this is what we do today, but knowing who the user is doesn't mean that
the proxy knows which calling party id the user wants to use.

 > That may not be the "right" way

the proxy MUST respect the user's will regarding the calling party id
within the limits of calling party ids of that user.  the proxy has no
right to pick one on its own.

-- juha

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:42:47 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 4:21 PM
> To: Dean Willis
> Cc: 'Rohan Mahy'; 'Mark Watson'; 'Flemming Andreasen'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Problem 4 of RE: [Sip] Proposed plan for 
> Network-Asserted ID/Privacy
> 
> 
> Dean Willis writes:
> 
> no it could not because the user may have any number of 
> calling party numbers belong to different area codes and even 
> different countries. the user thus definitely needs to be 
> able to control the calling party id.

Well, the user COULD have many different usernames to present to the
gateway, one for each public ID. They might not use the same username
for a calling-party-ID service (that is what we're talking about) as
they use for routing service on a proxy.

It's a different way to look at the problem, and I offer it only as an
existence proof for alternatives.

--
Dean

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:53:09 +0300

> they use for routing service on a proxy.

fine. a user may or may not have many calling party ids associated with
th same authentication username.  so the requirement is to support both
cases.

 > existence proof for alternatives.

yes, there is at least the above two alternatives and the scheme
whatever it is must support both is them.

also, i would like to add one more requirement, which is important for
backwards compatibility with thousands of currently deployed UAs, which
assume that (if the calling party is not anonymous) the calling party's
call can be returned by using its from uri.

-- juha