On 3/13/08 7:07 PM, Elwell, John wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Adam Roach >> >> 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: >>>> >>> 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. >
So we've gone from warning "don't implement internet-drafts" to "don't implement RFCs"? It seems folly to pull the rug out from under existing user agents when we've already identified at least one approach that seems to satisfy the keying requirement without breaking existing deployed equipment or making assertions that can't be verified by the asserter. Do you have a concrete objection to my proposal to tag the signed URI as having a level of trust that is less than absolute? /a _______________________________________________ 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
