[SIPForum-techwg] Interoperability Draft v3 - a few more comm ents
pkyzivat at cisco.com
Wed Jan 11 17:52:24 EST 2006
Richard Shockey wrote:
> Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> It seems important to consider how the Privacy header plays with this.
>> If there is a P-Asserted-ID, and a Privacy:id in the request, then the
>> P-Asserted-ID needs to be removed when leaving the trust boundary. (I
>> think removing it and inserting a P-Preferred-ID with the same value
>> would at least violate the spirit, if not the letter, of that
>> requirement.) To get callerid to work correctly in conjunction with
>> P-Asserted-ID, I think you need to consider the PBX plus the SP as one
>> big trust domain, perhaps with limited degrees of trust at some
>> points. (At least I think they trust each other to honor the Privacy
> Would that be the same for Calling Name Delivery (Display) aka (CNAM) as
> well as well.
RFC3325 doesn't provide separate control over calling name and calling
number. You get both or neither.
There are a number of issues around whether and how to authenticate
calling name (aka display name). Personally, I believe a provider should
not assert something it cannot authenticate.
>> If they do have this much trust then they probably should exchange
>> P-Asserted-ID across their boundary. If they don't, then maybe the PBX
>> uses P-Preferred-ID to the SP.
>> Joanne McMillen wrote:
More information about the techwg