Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-asserted-identity-01

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:17:11 -0500

For the nth time, if a user selects an anonymous From header field, that
does NOT mean that there is no other way in the base SIP specification for
them to specify an identity to an intermediary. The point is that 3GPP also
rejects any other of the conceivable ways of doing so for various reasons.
Your application has never seemed to me to suffer from the same limitations
- if there is any disagreement between you and I it seems to be on that
point alone, but the description of your application may not have been
sufficiently detailed for me to understand all of your requirements.

Frankly, Juha, given the fact that you despise the 3GPP process and
architecture, I don't see why you aren't content to let 3GPP-specific
extensions like asserted identity remain in a P- header ghetto. Making the
'requested identity' a standard header would certainly further encourage the
proliferation of the 3GPP architecture by validating some of their extremely
unSIPlike architectural assumptions.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:20 AM
> To: Peterson, Jon
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-asserted-identity-01
> 
> 
> Peterson, Jon writes:
> 
>  > I also feel (though admittedly,
>  > less strongly) that P-Preferred-Identity meets these 
> criteria in sipchange.
>  > The applicability of this header is very slight (it is 
> restricted to those
>  > cases in which neither the From field, nor any other 
> existing SIP header,
>  > nor the means of authentication, can express a desired 
> identity for whatever
>  > reason). I do not believe any of the use cases you have raised have
>  > substantiated a genuine need for this to be standard SIP behavior.
> 
> looks to me that if 3gpp doesn't need it, it not worth doing.  i have
> told several times that a user having multiple sip identities, e.g.,
> phone numbers, is a real life case happening here all the 
> time.  if such
> a user uses Anonymous from header, there is currently no way for the
> user to tell, which real identity he/she wants to use.  
> therefore sip is
> clearly lacking that functionality and it needs to be fixed by a real
> header that i can make vendors to implement (which is not the 
> case for p
> headers).
> 
>  > I might also note that I see quite a bit of correspondence 
> between you and I
>  > on this matter in the past - I don't exactly feel that 
> we've been ignoring
>  > your points. I simply feel it is almost laughable to 
> suggest that we're in
>  > need of some standard way for a user to express their 
> preferred identity
>  > when there are already so many to choose from in baseline 
> SIP. The need for
>  > P-Preferred-Identity only arises in a very aberrant case.
> 
> as i have said, there is no existing sip baseline or any 
> other mechanism
> to handle the above case.  also, i don't see anything temporary in the
> requested-identity header.  or are the sip wg rules nowadays such that
> all new headers by default are p unless there are really good 
> reasons to
> do real standard headers?
> 
> -- juha
> 

_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:47:45 +0300

Peterson, Jon writes:

 > them to specify an identity to an intermediary.

the only other way that i'm aware is having a different
username/password for each identity, which is not acceptable to our
customers.  they want to have a single username/password and multiple
sip identities.  i would like to hear your base sip solution to this.

-- juha

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:40:19 -0400

"Peterson, Jon" wrote:

> extensions like asserted identity remain in a P- header ghetto.

Ahem, what gave you the impression that this is only for 3GPP ? As you may
recall, PacketCable started out requiring this three years ago and subsequently
ITU-T SG9 requested this. Although an "acceptable" solution has not managed to
materialize in this considerable time-span, it does not imply that the need or
interest is gone. I'm sure there are other pragmatic parties that are interested
in this as well.

-- Flemming

---

From: Chris Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:34:39 -0500

> sip identities.  i would like to hear your base sip solution to this.
Why couldnt you have the same username and password for each profile, it
is the same person , right, and each would have to have a From that is
recognized within the REALM woudlnt it (this is an actual question on my
part not a statement)? 

Now from a security standpoint I typically dont recommend same username
and passwords for multiple accounts in the computing world, but we are
talking about this in terms of a network asserted identity for anonymity
right with a network that has knowledge of the multiple identities and
the username/password pairs?  

And since we are discussing network asserted identity, IMO, it doesnt
mean that the username or password has to be passed outside the network
or even within the network, it can merely be used as the method to
verify that the proper account is getting the proper asserted identity,
does this sound reasonable, or am I off on the topic here, since I am
replying to the specific content of this email?

---

From: Chris Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:51:21 -0500

> interest is gone. I'm sure there are other pragmatic parties that are interested

Yep, as I stated earlier, the solution is probably required in many
areas by many infrastructures.