I think if Privacy header has value of "none" then it is similar to one that does not have Privacy header at all. User 1 has no objection for displaying it's identity to the end user (User 2).
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alex Balashov Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 3:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Sip-implementors] RFC 3323 Privacy vs. RPID Greetings, If a UAS receives an initial INVITE with * A Remote-Party-ID header intended to convey calling party number (screen=off, privacy=off) - and yes, I know it's obsolete, just ignore that for a moment... and * a Privacy header with a value of 'none' ... does that mean the calling party value of the RPID is going to be ignored in favour of the default From URI user part? RFC 3323 section 4.2 defines the value of 'none' for the header 'Privacy' and appears to imply that, but the explicit connection between it and RPID or PAI is not made. Nevertheless, I would assume that RPID processing falls under the heading of 'privacy-related subsystems' and so the Privacy header would have some bearing on its treatment. I observed a Sonus doing just that this afternoon, and I wondered if this behaviour is correct. Thanks! -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
