Cullen, Have you read draft-elwell-sip-e2e-identity-important? I think you will find that gives a number of reasonable use cases.
John > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Cullen Jennings > Sent: 15 July 2008 17:23 > To: SIP List > Subject: Re: [Sip] Signing P-Asserted-Identity > > > On Jul 14, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > >> > >> So far, though, it's mostly just been complaints about why anyone > >> would need anything other than 4474. Now if we could only have > >> gotten such a real-world deployment experience requirement before > >> moving 4474 to PS... > >> > > > > Indeed. > > There are implementations of 4474 around and were long before it > became and RFC but ignoring that ... > > I asked some folks on this thread a few years ago for an > example of a > real deployment where it would not be possible to use 4474 as > long as > the SBC implemented 4474. I'm still waiting for an example of > where it > actually is broken. Hadriel hypothesized a type of situation > where it > could be broken. That was the case where service provider A passed > call to B who passed call C and they were not using E.164 > numbers but > were using email style addresses and the one in the middle wanted to > do media steering or restrict what codecs where allowed. > > Cullen <with my individual contributor hat on> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
