Dean,
I don't think I agree.
In the non-anonymous case, the asserter will attest that the source is
entitled to claim the address. AFAIK nothing else is implied. But assume
it will provide more - for instance the name, address, and SS# of the
person entitled to the address.
Now assume that the address is an "anonymous" address. The asserter will
then be providing information about the anonymizer, not the entity that
is being anonymized. Its entirely possible (likely) that the anonymizer
won't maintain records that would give it the capability of reporting on
the address being anonymized.
Paul
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
