> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > I too think the straw man from Dan is an interesting idea. The > > alternative that I think Hadriel is suggesting (email style as a > > parameter of the E.164-based SIP URI) would probably not survive any > > changes of the E.164-based URI by intermediaries -part of > > the problem with E.164-based URIs in practice. > > I don't disagree with that, obviously, but 4474 breaks in > such a case anyway. In other words, I thought he was > proposing both the e164 and email-style get signed, but maybe > I misunderstood.
The success and value of signing an E.164 is not changed by my proposal; signing the E.164 and solving the 'which domain can sign for an E.164' is orthogonal to my proposal. It is still a useful problem to solve. But, with my proposal if you received a message that had signed both: From: Dan Wing <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone> email-id: Dan Wing <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and the display on the receiving system could display either one, you would probably have it display both. After all, it is hard to know which one will have more meaning or value to the called party. Certainly, the signature generated by the originating domain (cisco.com) has superior security properties compared to the signature generated by an intermediary (att.net). > Regardless, I (maybe naively) hope the > changing of From-URI E.164's is a temporary situation, for > anyone except those doing end-end relationship-hiding, for > whom none of this will apply anyway. -d _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://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
