Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And if 4474
doesn't cover the needed headers, wouldn't a better fix be to change
4474 to allow more headers to be signed ala DKIM's h= tag instead
of rolling yet another scheme?
Some of it's the "headers", some the body, some the type of URI. I'm all for a
4474bis, and I hope we can make one happen. But if not, PASS may be useful for me. At
least so far PAI sure has seemed popular in my world.
In any case, P-A-I still seems like a different animal than 822-like
addresses which at least can be anchored in a given domain. DKIM
has the capability of signing messages that don't necessarily correspond
to any outside header, but AFAIK that capability isn't being used for
much... which sort of implies that it's either useless which SIP should
avoid, or useful which SIP backfill. Since we don't know the answer
to that quesion, wouldn't it be better to wait and see?
Wait and see what? You lost me there.
Meaning that it's far from clear how fledgling reputation services are
going to use these identities. What exactly does a signed P-A-I mean
even if we had one? What might a receiver or third party do differently
vs. a signed from, say? Especially when you factor in that P-A-I is
big smelly hack?
Waiting-and-seeing what the reputation folks actually need versus guessing
what they might need, maybe, someday seems prudent to me. That's
doubly true because there's not been much if any uptake of 4474 and
I'm guessing that lack of coverage of P-A-I is not one of the reasons.
Concentrating on _that_ problem seem to me the paramount concern.
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
