Subject: RE: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-asserted-identity-01.txt

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:02:30 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> i'm still against asserted identity as a p header.  there was
> considerable support to have asserted identity as a normal standards
> track header.  i don't understand how the authors decided to simply
> ignore that opinion.

As much as I hate to say it (because I think the whole P- header
thing is misguided), I think *if* we must have P- headers at all,
this is one of the most obvious places that they should be used.

Why? It's simple: this draft, an acknowledged short-term stopgap
solution to a problem, has extremely limited applicablity. It is
only useful on tightly controlled networks that have a single
domain of trust.

In general, deploying the currently proposed mechanism on a SIP
network is useless at best, and dangerous at worst. My initial reaction
is that it shouldn't be published by the IETF at all. It is only the
careful scoping put in the draft and the fact that the header name
itself makes its limited applicablity self-evident that makes it
palatable in the slightest.

/a

_______________________________________________
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