Even if the asserter is not going to reveal identity of the client, you can at least tell whether the call is authenticated by identity service or not. On the basis of that, I might want to receive authenticated anonymous calls but reject simple anonymous calls.
Mayumi Dean Willis wrote: > On Feb 19, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > >> In this case there is no expectation that the anonymized address >> will be willing or able to report to anyone what the identity of its >> client was. In the absence of any such assurance, having sip >> identity is of no use. > > > I disagree. > > The presence of an Identity header declares that the asserter of the > anonymized identity of the address, will if suitably encouraged (as > in a court order), reveal the identity of the client. If they aren't > willing to take the responsibility of having made an assertion of > identity on behalf of that client, then they shouldn't put an Identity > header in. > > I might be more willing to accept a call from an anonymous party if I > knew that, should said anonymous party be making a threat, my lawyer > can subpoena somebody and find the culprit. > > -- > Dean > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list http://www.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
