> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > And if 4474 > doesn't cover the needed headers, wouldn't a better fix be to change > 4474 to allow more headers to be signed ala DKIM's h= tag instead > of rolling yet another scheme?
Some of it's the "headers", some the body, some the type of URI. I'm all for a 4474bis, and I hope we can make one happen. But if not, PASS may be useful for me. At least so far PAI sure has seemed popular in my world. > In any case, P-A-I still seems like a different animal than 822-like > addresses which at least can be anchored in a given domain. DKIM > has the capability of signing messages that don't necessarily correspond > to any outside header, but AFAIK that capability isn't being used for > much... which sort of implies that it's either useless which SIP should > avoid, or useful which SIP backfill. Since we don't know the answer > to that quesion, wouldn't it be better to wait and see? Wait and see what? You lost me there. -hadriel _______________________________________________ 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
