I have always hated that the particular display name of "Anonymous" is
called out in the spec. I think that is wrong, and it should have been
that if you want your call to be anonymous then you should, among other
things, not include a display name or else include one of your choice
that doesn't disclose your actual identity.
But "Anonymous" is in fact singled out. Because it is, it has been made
a reserved word with a particular semantic. And I think that means that
a UA is free to render whatever it wants to convey that semantic to its
user.
This is not such a big deal because there is no normative requirement
regarding use of display name in general. AFAIK a UA may render it, not
render it, render some translation of it, or whatever.
Paul
Smith, Nigel (Com US) wrote:
> Does anyone know of anything to support (or otherwise) the following
> position:
>
> "It is the responsibility of a SIP UA device rendering a SIP URI
> display-name to a user (e.g. phone display) to deal with any language
> considerations.
> In particular, the SIP UA device may wish to translate the received
> From: header display-name "Anonymous" (RFC3261 section 8.1.1.3) to a
> language specific display when rendering this information to the user.
> SIP Servers and B2B User Agents should use the display-name "Anonymous"
> in the From: header if the identity of the client is to remain hidden
> and should not attempt to use any other language specific display-name
> to indicate that the identity should be hidden."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nigel Smith
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> Sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
