Elwell, John wrote:
> There seems to be some interest in adding some indicator to the URI or
> to the header field to warn of the limited guarantee of authenticity or
> the opposite (i.e.,lack of such an indicator would mean the guarantee is
> low, i.e., the identity has not been verified).
>
Versus the limited guarantee of authenticity of rfc4474 generally?
Let's be clear here: rfc4474 (like rfc4871) is a domain level "I
take responsibility" kind of mechanism. It is not any strong proof
that the local part is who it says it is. A receiver should always be
at least somewhat skeptical.
> I think on this issue it is just a matter of somebody putting things
> together into a draft. I think Dean and/or Adam were the main initiators
> of this proposal - something like a source=pstn parameter. Would
> somebody care to author a draft? Or do we need further discussion?
>
This seems like a slippery slope here. There may plenty of other reasons
that the local part might not be trusted besides being routed from the
PSTN.
So let me ask: what problem are we trying to solve and for whom?
And lets keep in mind the skeptical receiver.
Mike
_______________________________________________
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
