If some UAS prefers an anonymous address that has been authenticated,
then I have no objection, though I consider it irrational. But I don't
see this as a necessary condition for a privacy mechanism.
Paul
Mayumi Munakata wrote:
> 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
