Paul, Thanks for your early read of this draft. Points taken.
John > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat > Sent: 01 October 2008 16:01 > To: Elwell, John > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-elwell-sip-identity-handling-ua-00 posted > > John, > > I really like this document! I think it is important. > > A few comments: > > Furthermore, although a P-Asserted-Identity header field > can contain > a display-name, the assertion strictly speaking covers > only the URI, > and therefore the display-name is even less trustworthy > than the URI. > ... > If a display-name is received, the general advice is not > to present > it to the user. Presenting an authenticated identifier > along with an > unauthenticated display-name would be misleading. A preferred > solution is to obtain a name by phone-book look-up, based on the > received authenticated identifier, and present that. If an > unauthenticated identifier is presented (and indicated as > not to be > trusted), little additional harm would arise from also > presenting the > display-name. > > In services that are providing traditional telephony services, > calling-name is often an important feature. When the services are > provided via sip, the display name seems to be the only > obvious choice > for conveying calling-name to the callee. > > A provider that needs to do this *can* police the use of > display-name in > From and/or manage its use of display-name in > P-Asserted-Identity. In > such an environment, the display-name could be trusted by the > UAS to the > same extent that the rest of the identity is. > > If there is an alternative source of info, such as a local phone book > with a matching entry, then it would seem good to prefer > that. If there > is no alternative source, and the display-name is not > trusted, then it > may still be better to display it than not. Especially if some > indication of distrust can be rendered with it. > > When a UA receives more than one caller identifier, the choice of > which one to present to the user will be influenced by > trustworthiness. Generally the most trustworthy should be chosen. > When two of equal trust are received (e.g., a TEL URI and > a SIP URI > in the P-Asserted-Identity header field), there may be grounds for > presenting each (or elements of each), if this is > possible, because > either or both could be of use to the user. > > Another consideration is the context in which the identifier is > displayed. In some cases the display is predicated on the > identity being > a number. In such a case there will be a bias towards > displaying either > a type 1 address or the user portion of a type 2 address. > > Thanks, > Paul > > Elwell, John wrote: > > This draft arose out of suggestions during SIP Identity > discussions in > > the SIP WG in Dublin that we should consider UA handling of received > > identity information. > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-elwell-sip-identity- > handling-u > > a-00.txt > > > > John > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
