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

From: "Chiou, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:50:45 -0500

Coercion <=> consent.

There is no explicit consent within the signaling of an invidiual
transaction. External contractual issues are outside of the protocol,
and tend to violate the "openness" characteristic of an Internet
protocol. In otherwises, there's a philosophical difference between an
explicit request from the user that a network providing break privacy
for that transaction, and a network that breaks privacy just because I
didn't tell it NOT to.

Note of course, that we're not talking about PSTN provoders, we're
talking IP to IP usage over the publicaly addressable Internet.

<Mark Chiou> So, for IP, all the UAs are defaulted to PRIVATE. When a user wishes to make an anonymous calls, SIP needs an indication for the network (i.e. Service Provider) to identify who is calling and translate or retrieve the identity of the calling from the service agreement, then pass the calling identity within the networks without sending the calling identity to the UA of the called party.   

<snip>

Personally, the UA I uset he most writes every last SIP header and the
body to the screen, and copies them all to a log file just in case. One
cannot rely on the called party's software to protect the privacy of the
calling party.
 
<Mark Chiou> Agree. So we have to separate the needs for Privacy and the needs for Network, such that the privacy is fully controlled by the UA. On the other hand, the Service Providers have the responsibility to obtain the UA's identify for network usage (i.e. Emergency, Law Enforcement, Call trace, and etc) without breaking the UA's privacy. I means the UA's identity, which is needed by the Network, shall not be delivered to the terminating of the UA.

Mark Chiou

_______________________________________________
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: Chris Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:34:50 -0500

These kinds of questions regarding subject or message body fall into the
confidentiality category at that point...which is the next step in
providing privacy. The thread to this date has been focusing on identity
privacy as seen in the header fields, not the content of the SIP
message.  

I recommend, IMHO, that these items should be addressed separately, and
that the initial focus on SIP header privacy (except for the content and
related message body) is a good necessary first step to address. The
next obvious step should be the idea of confidentiality of the
content/message body as well as to the media itself (which I believe is
yet another separate issue from teh SIP protocol itself), which I
believe will be subject to required regulation when the smoke clears in
any event. Confidentiality will of course boil down to the SIPS
solution, IPSec possibly, or some other means, but is a separate topic
related to the caller/identification privacy.

When speaking in terms of privacy provided by a service provider, I
believe the act of requesting a UA account to be private to be a
customer subscription process separate and not provided as a SIP
signaling process. Unless my assumption is incorrect, in the event that
it is assumed that SIP will be used as the vehicle to provide the
subscription process and that this is the reason why the need for new
headers is being pursued within the WG. In that case I understand why
this is being pursued but that isnt something that I have seen clearly
in the thread.

I thought that Mark wanted clear direction for the draft to go, select
one of the three choices. The semantics could be hashed out during the
progress of the direction chosen.