Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> 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.
>
I'd say that the sooner that we stop worrying about what happens
when the signaling and media streams cease to be transported by
IP, the sooner our sanity will seek us out again. Or even less than
that. We can't possibly even enumerate all of the potential hazards
even within the IP realm like, oh say, media->email/MIME
attachments re-posted to Usenet.
Mike
> -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.
>>>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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
