Yes, I think this is the right direction. I would not want to prevent investigations on how to do it better, e.g., based on the ENUM tree in some way. But what you propose is a practical step that gives some value in the short term, both in terms of anti-spam and DTLS-SRTP.
Perhaps we also need to do even more to promote email-style SIP URIs, alongside Tel URIs for use when interworking with PSTN. This does not necessarily prevent the use of numeric values in the user part of email-style URIs (without user=phone), thereby making it easier to correlate the a SIP URI with the telephone number that would need to be used to contact the user from the PSTN. Perhaps it would be beneficial to provide both an email-style SIP URI and a Tel URI in From, so that the Tel URI can be used if the call breaks out to PSTN (where end-to-end security is not achievable) and the SIP URI can be used in other cases. John > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jonathan Rosenberg > Sent: 20 February 2008 02:44 > To: Paul Kyzivat > Cc: IETF SIP List; Francois Audet > Subject: Re: [Sip] New I-D on RFC4474 and phone numbers > > Actually what I am hoping to do is to just clearly document the > applicability of RFC4474 to numbers and be much crisper with > guidance on > when to use it, when to not, what it buys you with numbers (since it > does help a little even then - receivers can know the domain that > asserts that number and use blacklists/whitelists to judge > trustability). > > I also want to make sure we are not basing SRTP security on integrity > properties delivered with RFC4474, when said properties aren't really > delivered so well with phone numbers. > > -Jonathan R. > > Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > > > > > Francois Audet wrote: > >> I think we might be talking about two different aspects. > >> > >> For "phone numbers", I agree with you that parity is ok. > >> > >> For "email-looking addresses", I believe the bar is higher (and we > >> have it already with 4474). > > > > OK. THen we aren't far apart. I agree we want and have > something better > > for email-style addresses where the domain is significant. > It is the > > "phone number" addresses I am concerned with here. I think > we must have > > parity, and ideally better when the PSTN isn't involved. > > > > Paul > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, > >>> February 19, 2008 11:58 > >>> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > >>> Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; IETF SIP List > >>> Subject: Re: [Sip] New I-D on RFC4474 and phone numbers > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Francois Audet wrote: > >>>> I'm not sure I agree with that. > >>>> > >>>> I think we want something that is better than the PSTN. I > >>> just don't > >>>> think it's the right question to ask. > >>> I certainly *want* something better than PSTN. But > perhaps we don't > >>> *need* that. I think we do *need* something "as good as" the PSTN. > >>> > >>> But perhaps the first order of business is to come to > agreement on > >>> what we need. > >> > > > > -- > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 499 Thornall St. > Cisco Fellow Edison, NJ 08837 > Cisco, Voice Technology Group > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (408) 902-3084 > http://www.cisco.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
