Dean Willis wrote:
On Nov 8, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
I guess we might have "can't say who you are talking with, but nobody
can listen in". That in itself is of some utility.
And maybe with sip identity we have "somebody you trust says you are
talking to X, and nobody can listen in to whoever you are talking to".
Right. But between "all" and "nothing" there's some middle ground:
"Nobody who hasn't been authorized to do so by your regulated provider
can listen in". This is the middle ground they're asking us to fill in.
Do we want to go there, or is it all-or-nothing?
Well, that is one of the issues isn't it?
I have mixed feelings whether the middle ground is any better and nothing.
So I don't know. But either way, I think these need to be turned into
meaningful assertions that can be verified.
We have similar situations with callerid. There are a variety of
mechanisms used to provide info that is presented as "callerid". These
have a wide range of trustworthiness. I would like to have a way to
determine the kind of assertion that goes with a callerid when it is
displayed to me.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
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
