Re: [BLISS] Comments on draft-procter-bliss-call-park-extension-04(Privacy Interactions)

["Francois Audet" <[e-mail]>]

Why do we send the REFER to the Park server (to replace the call to the other user),
as opposed to sending the REFER to the other user to direct him/her to the Park 
server? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Worley, Dale (BL60:9D30) 
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 14:30
> To: Orton, Scott (RICH1:B620)
> Cc: Michael Procter; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Comments on 
> draft-procter-bliss-call-park-extension-04(Privacy Interactions)
> 
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 17:22 -0400, Orton, Scott (RICH1:B620) wrote:
> > Lets take for example a case where Alice calls bob. Alice is using 
> > privacy as defined in RFC 3325. In this case the from 
> header and the 
> > contact for Alice will anonymous. The contact is likely just an IP 
> > address and the from header will be sip:[e-mail].
> > The contact header being an IP address is enough to 
> exchange messages 
> > in a dialog but is unlikely to be enough to route a new call to the 
> > Alice. If it was enough then you privacy is not very good 
> as nothing 
> > is preventing the user from returning a private call.
> 
> If you want to use anything approaching "endpoint call 
> control", that is, anything more complex than an in-dialog 
> REFER, then the anonymized Contact has to route to Alice, or 
> rather, the privacy service fronting for Alice.  So it would 
> have to be similar to a "temporary GRUU" (see 
> draft-ietf-sip-gruu-15), a URI which is secretly mapped to a 
> unique target but for only a limited time.
> 
> But assuming that the privacy service can provide such 
> Contacts, I think the proposed parking method (out-of-dialog 
> REFER sent to the Park Server so that it sends 
> INVITE-with-Replace to the caller) should work.
> 
> Dale
> 
> 
>