> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > There is a difficult line to walk here:
Yes, very. > On one hand the GW operator doesn't want to be held liable for asserting > an address it can't verify. > OTOH the UAS (should) want *some* assurance of the identity of the > caller before displaying it as caller id. But I think that's the rub - people are pointing out that a PSTN Gateway doesn't have that assurance of the CLID it got to begin with. Garbage in = garbage out. I don't disagree there is a pragmatic middle-ground though. (the reality is the CLID's correct 99%+ of the time) I'm just trying to figure out how in SIP it wouldn't quickly be worthless. > If the UAS won't display without a trusted signature, and the GWs won't > provide a signature for anything from the PSTN, then sip phones won't > ever get callerid for calls from the PSTN. Sure, but it's the first antecedent I don't think holds: it just needs to display it differently, like with a "?" at the end or some such. I know, I'm dreaming. :) This problem sucketh. -hadriel _______________________________________________ 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
