> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Adam Roach > Sent: 13 March 2008 22:38 > To: Dean Willis > Cc: IETF SIP List > Subject: Re: [Sip] The thing we're missing in the RFC 4474 > and DTLS-SRTPdiscussion > > I'll reiterate my key point here at the top: we cannot retroactively > change the behavior of deployed user agents. All we can do is > make sure > what we're proposing doesn't make do stupid and/or useless things. > > More inline. > > On 3/13/08 6:26 PM, Dean Willis wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 2008, at 1:58 PM, Adam Roach wrote: > > > >> On 3/13/08 11:59 AM, Dean Willis wrote: > >>> We could fix this by having gateways encode their > identity using a > >>> reserved userpart. This has to have the property of > saying "Do not > >>> display this as caller-ID". Using "sip:domain" or "sip:ipaddress" > >>> does not work, as those might actually be valid URIs that be be > >>> displayed as IDs. > >>> > >> > >> That's the problem I have -- if the calling party reported by the > >> PSTN has been completely pulled out of the "From" header > field, then > >> you'll have very bad interaction with currently deployed phones. I > >> don't think that's a reasonable trade-off. That's why I > think this... > > > > That;s why John proposed P-AI-ID as the Caller-ID source. > > > The phone on my desk would treat that like any other unknown > header, and > ignore it. [JRE] Many phones do recognise P-Asserted-Identity and use that in preference to an unsigned From URI. It is difficult to find a solution that will not upset any existing deployed device, but we can at least try to make it work acceptably with a sizeable population.
John _______________________________________________ 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
