Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field

Elwell, John wrote:
>> Obviously DERIVE (or perhaps non-SIP based reverse verifications)
>> appears a feasible alternative to me (because  easy to deploy and
>> offering incentives to do so), but given the interest it is quite
>> certain there will be more different alternatives.
> [JRE] I am open to such alternative suggestions. I think the problem
> with DERIVE was that it still was impacted by the idiosyncrasies of SIP,
> i.e., B2BUAs and backwards compatibility with UACs. Perhaps we need a
> non-SIP-based solution.
> 
> John

Hi John,

that may be very well true, in the end SIP is quite complex nowadays and
overloading it with more stuff may make things possibly worse.

I'm just wondering what folks thing about reverse verification per DNS.
While not providing such a good granularity as SIP does, there is still
some better-than-nothing value in it. What I find appealing about it is
there is some prior experience (our domain for example is using SPF).
Also, identity established via DNS is not worthless -- changing DNS
names to change identity is associated with some prohibitive cost.

Any other ideas?

-jiri
_______________________________________________
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