Re: draft-elwell-sip-identity-handling-ua-00 posted

"Elwell, John" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.sip
Message-ID <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D00123031A@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
Paul,

Thanks for your early read of this draft. Points taken.

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: 01 October 2008 16:01
> To: Elwell, John
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-elwell-sip-identity-handling-ua-00 posted
> 
> John,
> 
> I really like this document! I think it is important.
> 
> A few comments:
> 
>     Furthermore, although a P-Asserted-Identity header field 
> can contain
>     a display-name, the assertion strictly speaking covers 
> only the URI,
>     and therefore the display-name is even less trustworthy 
> than the URI.
> ...
>     If a display-name is received, the general advice is not 
> to present
>     it to the user.  Presenting an authenticated identifier 
> along with an
>     unauthenticated display-name would be misleading.  A preferred
>     solution is to obtain a name by phone-book look-up, based on the
>     received authenticated identifier, and present that.  If an
>     unauthenticated identifier is presented (and indicated as 
> not to be
>     trusted), little additional harm would arise from also 
> presenting the
>     display-name.
> 
> In services that are providing traditional telephony services, 
> calling-name is often an important feature. When the services are 
> provided via sip, the display name seems to be the only 
> obvious choice 
> for conveying calling-name to the callee.
> 
> A provider that needs to do this *can* police the use of 
> display-name in 
>  From and/or manage its use of display-name in 
> P-Asserted-Identity. In 
> such an environment, the display-name could be trusted by the 
> UAS to the 
> same extent that the rest of the identity is.
> 
> If there is an alternative source of info, such as a local phone book 
> with a matching entry, then it would seem good to prefer 
> that. If there 
> is no alternative source, and the display-name is not 
> trusted, then it 
> may still be better to display it than not. Especially if some 
> indication of distrust can be rendered with it.
> 
>     When a UA receives more than one caller identifier, the choice of
>     which one to present to the user will be influenced by
>     trustworthiness.  Generally the most trustworthy should be chosen.
>     When two of equal trust are received (e.g., a TEL URI and 
> a SIP URI
>     in the P-Asserted-Identity header field), there may be grounds for
>     presenting each (or elements of each), if this is 
> possible, because
>     either or both could be of use to the user.
> 
> Another consideration is the context in which the identifier is 
> displayed. In some cases the display is predicated on the 
> identity being 
> a number. In such a case there will be a bias towards 
> displaying either 
> a type 1 address or the user portion of a type 2 address.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> Elwell, John wrote:
> > This draft arose out of suggestions during SIP Identity 
> discussions in
> > the SIP WG in Dublin that we should consider UA handling of received
> > identity information.
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-elwell-sip-identity-
> handling-u
> > a-00.txt
> > 
> > John
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> > Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
> > Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
> Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip
> 
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.