Hi Prakash, So this means SBC is implementing privacy services as well due to which it removed privacy header and modified From header. In case no SBC is in between you are receiving INVITE as it is.
Thanks and Regards, Vivek Talwar ________________________________________ From: prakash k [prakash12...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:41 AM To: Vivek Talwar Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Regarding Display Name when Privacy:id Hi Vivek, setup is SBC sits between two different network, since it acts at B2BUA from one network i am receiving the INVITE as show below INVITE sip:08012345614@x.x.x.x:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDPx.x.x.x :5060;branch=z9hG4bKbd51d88- c16058d2 From: "+13109976224" <sip:+13109976224@x.x.x.x: 5060>;tag=184886456 To: <sip:08012345614@x.x.x.x:5060> Privacy: id >From SBC it goes as INVITE sip:8012345614@x.x.x.x:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP x.x.x.x:5060;branch= z9hG4bK09B013f59d419cd8475 From: *"+13109976224" *<sip:Anonymous@Anonymous.invalid>;tag=gK09005224 To: <sip:8012345614@x.x.x.x> On 9 September 2011 11:31, Vivek Talwar <vivek.tal...@frogdesign.com<mailto:vivek.tal...@frogdesign.com>> wrote: Hi Prakash, What I see from logs is: 1. The user agent is itself implementing the privacy service. In outgoing INVITE the the privacy field is not present and From header is anonymous. 2. In incoming INVITE, the Privacy value is present and From is anonymous means privacy services have not yet modified the user identity. You are using two different clients on both side? Thanks and Regards, Vivek Talwar ________________________________________ From: prakash k [prakash12...@gmail.com<mailto:prakash12...@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:27 AM To: Vivek Talwar Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu<mailto:sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Regarding Display Name when Privacy:id Hi Vivek, 4.1.1.1 Display-Names It is a relatively common practice in email and other applications to use an assumed name in the display-name component of the From header field. Outside of a business context (especially in applications such as instant messaging or Internet gaming) the use of such aliases is unlikely to provide a cause for distrust. It is RECOMMENDED that user agents seeking anonymity use a display- name of "Anonymous". I assume that this RFC talks from End user perspective. whereas in my case Incoming INVITE has the following INVITE sip:08012345614@x.x.x.x:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDPx.x.x.x :5060;branch=z9hG4bKbd51d88- c16058d2 From: "+13109976224" <sip:+13109976224@x.x.x.x:5060>;tag=184886456 To: <sip:08012345614@x.x.x.x:5060> Privacy: id Outgoing INVITE has the following INVITE sip:8012345614@x.x.x.x:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP x.x.x.x:5060;branch=z9hG4bK09B013f59d419cd8475 From: *"+13109976224" *<sip:Anonymous@Anonymous.invalid>;tag=gK09005224 To: <sip:8012345614@x.x.x.x> Is it the right behavior from B2BUA to send the Display Name when Privacy is set to "id" ? On 9 September 2011 11:13, Vivek Talwar <vivek.tal...@frogdesign.com<mailto:vivek.tal...@frogdesign.com><mailto:vivek.tal...@frogdesign.com<mailto:vivek.tal...@frogdesign.com>>> wrote: Hi, Refer Privacy RFC 3323 for privacy. In incoming INVITE , the privacy value should not be there and this value should be removed by any application server hosting privacy services and headers should be modified accordingly. Thanks and Regards, Vivek Talwar ________________________________________ From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu<mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu><mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu<mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu>> [sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu<mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu><mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu<mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu>>] On Behalf Of prakash k [prakash12...@gmail.com<mailto:prakash12...@gmail.com><mailto:prakash12...@gmail.com<mailto:prakash12...@gmail.com>>] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 10:57 AM To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu<mailto:sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu><mailto:sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu<mailto:sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu>> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Regarding Display Name when Privacy:id Hi All, I have the following scenario: Incoming invite has Privacy:id along "From" header carrying "Display Name" Where as the outgoing INVITE has "From" Header set "sip:Anonymous@Anonymous.invalid" whereas the display-name goes as it is. Is there any draft mentioning about this behavior handling. Incoming INVITE has the following INVITE sip:08012345614@x.x.x.x:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDPx.x.x.x :5060;branch=z9hG4bKbd51d88-c16058d2 From: "+13109976224" <sip:+13109976224@x.x.x.x:5060>;tag=184886456 To: <sip:08012345614@x.x.x.x:5060> Privacy: id Outgoing INVITE has the following INVITE sip:8012345614@x.x.x.x:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP x.x.x.x:5060;branch=z9hG4bK09B013f59d419cd8475 From: *"+13109976224" *<sip:Anonymous@Anonymous.invalid>;tag=gK09005224 To: <sip:8012345614@x.x.x.x> -- Thanks Prakash K _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu<mailto:Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu><mailto:Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu<mailto:Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors Please refer to http://www.frogdesign.com/disclaimer for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. -- Thanks Prakash K Please refer to http://www.frogdesign.com/disclaimer for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. -- Thanks Prakash K Please refer to http://www.frogdesign.com/disclaimer for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
