> -----Original Message----- > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 6:50 AM > To: Adam Roach > Cc: Dan Wing; 'SIP IETF'; 'Adam Uzelac'; 'Dean Willis' > Subject: Re: [Sip] Alternative SIP Identity Approach (was re: > Thoughts on SIP Identity) > > > On Jul 31, 2008, at 7:30 , Adam Roach wrote: > > > > > Yes, that has the right property -- enough information to > > reconstruct which changes were made, and by whom. > > That might be the right property but on the other hand, there is a > big difference between the two following properties of a system. > > 1) the receiver can tell what intermediaries made changes and what > changes were made > > 2) the sender was aware of, and authorized, the changes made by > intermediaries > > I can see ways we could build either of these. But right now it seem > unclear on what we are even trying to accomplish.
I would like to accomplish end-to-end identity through SBCs, rather than hop-by-hop identity that exists with today's RFC4474 through SBCs. -d > 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
