[SIPForum-techwg] Interoperability Draft v3 - a few more comm ents

[Paul Kyzivat]

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 
>> header.)
> 
> 
> 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.

	Paul

>> 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.
>>
>>     Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Joanne McMillen wrote:
>>
>>>