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

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:51:11 -0400

>> The UA is by far in the best position to determine the level of 
>> anonymity it wishes, and if it can't get enough (because, for example, 
>> it wants it's IP addresses obscured), it will have to employ a 
>> B2BUA as above.  
> 
>Agreed. But the UA is not in a good position to determine the 
>subscribers anonymity requirements, or other parties not represented 
>by a UA. In a Service Provider model, these people have some rights. 
>So, the network may have to employ a B2BUA or whatever on behalf of 
>these people. There is no problem with this and so no case for 
>obfuscating the From/To fields - agreed ?

Agreed.  Don't forget the obvious problem of any crypto (signatures
for example) on any of these fields!

Brian

_______________________________________________
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: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:44:47 -0500

> for example) on any of these fields!

Yep, current B2BUA's would have problems if encryption or hashing is
done for many of the fields.

The development of SIPS is an example where current B2BUA's may run into
issues as SIPS is developed and standardized, unless they are also able
to verify hash or provide decryption/encrytpion as needed to provide the
service.

Chris