I think if the "Privacy: none" present then one can use either use display caller from "From" header or it can use User Part from RPID header. If it has "Privacy : user" then one must not display the caller id from RPID instead it should use "From" header which is "Anonymous".
-----Original Message----- From: Alex Balashov [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:57 AM To: Uttam Sarkar Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] RFC 3323 Privacy vs. RPID That was my interpretation as well. Nevertheless, the behaviour I witnessed from Sonus is: * If 'Privacy: none' is present, RPID URI user part is not taken into account as calling party number, but only From URI. * If 'Privacy' header is removed entirely, RPID URI user part is used as the calling number. I did not try any other values of the 'Privacy' header. I cannot find any RFC or draft that makes explicit the connection between the 'Privacy' header and the concept of privacy as rendered in RPID. Yet, that's the only explanation I could come up with. On 01/12/2010 08:42 AM, Uttam Sarkar wrote: > 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
