Elwell, John wrote:
> Michael,
>
> The proposed indicator is probably better described as "not verified"
> rather than "limited guarantee of authenticity". But maybe, as has also
> been suggested, we simply should not use RFC 4474 on requests from a
> PSTN gateway.
>
Rather than work on a solution, I'd rather hear why a receiver cares
about any of this. Ie, what does the consumer of this information do
differently? The experience from the email world thus far is "not much"
which makes me suspicious this is too abstract a problem for the outside
world to care about.
A far more important question to be asking IMO is what will drive
4474 _deployment_, rather than adding bells and whistles to it. Until
there's something of a critical mass then it's pretty much just speculation
about the real life concerns.
Mike, who's ecstatic that 7% of domains are dkim checking now
but still doesn't think we know a lot about the evaluation of
the localpart
> John
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 04 April 2008 17:12
>> To: Elwell, John
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [Sip] RFC 4474 and PSTN
>>
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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
