Mayumi, I have looked through the privacy-guidelines document and have the following comments.
1. I was not aware of TISPAN use of priv-values other than "id". This does indeed give greater justification for this draft, but I would recommend you seek review from a couple of TISPAN experts. 2. Should this in fact be targeted as a BCP? 3. There seems to be no mention of impact on event packages whose notifications might convey information that has been anonymized or removed. I am thinking in particular about Call-Id and the Dialog event package, where an anonymizer would need to intervene. Of course, in this particular case, problems can be avoided by not authorizing subscription - I don't know whether this is a good enough solution. 4. The Join header field is subject to the same issues as Replaces and Target-Dialog. Otherwise it looks to be in good shape. John > -----Original Message----- > From: Mayumi Munakata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 July 2007 11:03 > To: Elwell, John > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: draft-munakata-sip-privacy-new/guideline > > John, > > Thank you for the comments for the privacy drafts. > See inline. > > > [JRE] I guess the question we have to ask is whether there are > > substantical interoperability problems with RFC 3323. As > the only value > > that seems to be used in practice is 'id', rules are fairly > > straightforward. > > TISPAN specs are actually using other priv-values such as > 'user' and 'header'. An interoperability problem could > occur because of different interpretations of priv-values. > > > One concern, however, is with 'history'. I don't know > whether this is > > implemented in practice. RFC 4244 allows a proxy to insert > this value. > > So whilst privacy-new defines a new way for UAs to ensure > privacy and > > should in the longer term lead to a move away from the > Privacy header > > field (depending on what is used for the privacy flag), > what will happen > > to proxy use of Privacy: history? > > The privacy flag to be defined in the privacy-new draft > will be a request for proxies to delete History-Info headers > on the edge of Trust Domain. > However, as you say, 'history' privacy is usually requested > by a proxy for the purpose of topology hiding. > The "privacy" in this new mechanism means the "user-privacy" > so the "network-privacy" (topology hiding) may be out of scope. > > Thanks, > Mayumi > > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.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
