[SIPForum-techwg] Use of sip:anonymous at serviceprovider.net

[Sumit Garg]

If the PSTN did not supply an E.164 number it would be better to have a
>From field of the form:
From: "Unknown" <sip:unknown at x.y>;tag=0728361". 

Please note that in PSTN anonymous call (CLIPR - deliberately
suppressing identity) is treated different from the scenario where no
identity is supplied (callingNo is optional in SS7 and hence this is
mostly a switch property). Anonymous calls should get rejected with 433
if Anonymous call rejection is subscribed to but calls from "unknown
caller" are generally connected. It would be better to have 2 distinct
values from the onset.

-----Original Message-----
From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
On Behalf Of Elwell, John
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:36 AM
To: Francois Audet; techwg at sipforum.org
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] Use of sip:anonymous at serviceprovider.net

So what is the resolution of this?

Looking again at this in v06, in 10.1.4 we have conflicting statements.
In the first paragraph it says:
"For example, a network-based "anonymizing" service could update the
>From header field URI <SIP:anonymous at serviceprovider.net> to obscure
the
identity of the caller, or even <SIP:anonymous at anonymous.invalid> to
obscure the identity of the caller and originating service provider",

but then later it states:
"If the PSTN did not supply an E.164 calling number, or the caller has
requested calling number privacy, then the following anonymous URI MUST
be populated in the 'From:' field:
From: "Anonymous" <sip:anonymous at anonymous.invalid>;tag=0728361"

This seems to me to be in conflict. It is not clear to me whether the
privacy part of the statement above applies only to the PSTN case or
more generally.

Also, in 10.2.5, we simply refer to 10.1.4, which depending on how you
interpret the conflicting statements in 10.1.4, might mean that you can
send sip:anonymous at serviceprovider.net (as opposed to
sip:anonymous at enterprise.com), which would be valid only if the
enterprise shares the service provider's domain name.

Before proposing specific words, I think we have 4 cases to deal with:
1. Incoming calls, where the anonymization service (or call origination)
is in the SP network. In this case we could specify that you MUST use
sip:anonymous at anonymous.invalid, or we could allow sip:anonymous at sp.net
as an alternative. What do people prefer?
2. Incoming calls, where the anonymization service (or call origination)
is in a another network and the anonymous From URI is simply forwarded
through the SP network. In this case any of the forms allowed in RFC
3261 should be tolerated.
3. Outgoing calls, where the anonymization service (or call origination)
is in the enterprise network. In this case we could specify that you
MUST use sip:anonymous at anonymous.invalid, or we could allow
sip:anonymous at domain (where domain is the domain used in Enterprise
Public Identities) as an alternative. What do people prefer?
4. Outgoing calls, where the anonymization service (or call origination)
is in a another network and the anonymous From URI is simply forwarded
through the enterprise network. In this case any of the forms allowed in
RFC 3261 should be tolerated.

In addition, we may or may not need to say something about PSTN
origination in either direction.

Comments?

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet at nortel.com] 
> Sent: 09 April 2009 19:24
> To: Elwell, John; techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Use of 
> sip:anonymous at serviceprovider.net
> 
> I think sip:anonymous at anonymous.invalid is more likely to be used
> than the alternatives. 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org 
> > [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Elwell, John
> > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 06:26
> > To: techwg at sipforum.org
> > Subject: [SIPForum-techwg] Use of sip:anonymous at serviceprovider.net
> > 
> > In 10.1.4 we allow the SP-SSE to send this format of URI to 
> > the SIP-PBX for incoming calls to the enterprise. We don't 
> > mention this in the other direction for outgoing calls.
> > 
> > I have received feedback that this format is often not 
> > accepted. I don't know how often it is used in practice. Do 
> > we really need to specify this format (given that we can use 
> > sip:anonymous at anonymous.invalid instead)?
> > If there is a case for it, is there also a case for using it 
> > in the reverse direction?
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > techwg mailing list
> > Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> > Unsubscribe or edit options at:  
> > http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
> > 
> 

_______________________________________________
techwg mailing list
Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
Unsubscribe or edit options at:
http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg