Mike,
On Jul 8, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Indeed, DKIM has the same constraint as well. What I'm not entirely
getting is why 4474 isn't sufficient for the overall goal.
See:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=draft-elwell-sip-e2e-identity-important-00
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kaplan-sip-uris-change-00.txt
They explain where RFC 4474 breaks in actual implementations. (The
key point being that devices in the network like SBCs change headers
that are part of the 4474 Identity signature, thus invalidating the
4474 identity.)
Regards,
Dan
--
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
Build voice applications based on open standards.
Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free
_______________________________________________
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
