IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..

"Dwight, Timothy M (Tim)" <timothy.dwight@verizon.com> Sun, 14 June 2015 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <timothy.dwight@verizon.com>
X-Original-To: cnit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cnit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0D91A87A6 for <cnit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 11:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hnxfGmPeG3Mr for <cnit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 11:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fldsmtpe02.verizon.com (fldsmtpe02.verizon.com [140.108.26.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D82E81A8782 for <cnit@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 11:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=verizon.com; i=@verizon.com; q=dns/txt; s=corp; t=1434306102; x=1465842102; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=QpLOyc7PpH8V8k32i3E0d4KKEmYC4AEv8Shjpz0erAc=; b=NJLyCB+Cu6R5fgHKRU2LLAnjUaxeKD6+fEahHc17wIYuBYku3Yc5iLu/ lWSF7VOjg5G55IiOyyUT+f/r2rA9WCzxTyUZW/46DqDjj7zPC6mEkX43f kkgv0JMBewjPqqnprY0/kbBAT4OiZjW1vcRBoTF+6LDr1gTZ0h4XjN+JD U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false
Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi01.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.143]) by fldsmtpe02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2015 18:21:39 +0000
From: "Dwight, Timothy M (Tim)" <timothy.dwight@verizon.com>
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,614,1427760000"; d="scan'208";a="35488412"
Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb03.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.190]) by fldsmtpi01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2015 18:21:41 +0000
Received: from FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.125.32]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.190]) with mapi; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:21:39 -0400
To: Henning Schulzrinne <Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov>, Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:21:38 -0400
Thread-Topic: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..
Thread-Index: AQHQpF27t1IjTQnD9Ee6If5FuC7/752nvtOAgAAcbYD//73Z54ABUaEAgAA9LQD//8LlU4AARHQAgAAZ6QCAAArCAIAAB9cAgAAPTgCAABkwgP//7x3tAA73xIAARAClgQAI3ukQ
Message-ID: <2B0F677F0B95454297753F58D4A07FA30279326EC9@FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com>
References: <D19F23AD.26CEA%richard@shockey.us> <E42CCDDA6722744CB241677169E8365603614617@MISOUT7MSGUSRDB.ITServices.sbc.com> <9588_1434045613_5579CCAD_9588_574_1_fki5dyxdmgyv92b6hugpfuoy.1434045608655@email.android.com> <E6A16181E5FD2F46B962315BB05962D07D354C94@fcc.gov> <9384_1434103912_557AB068_9384_7221_1_B5939C6860701C49AA39C5DA5189448B14C216E0@OPEXCLILM42.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D1A05A04.26E84%richard@shockey.us> <E6A16181E5FD2F46B962315BB05962D07D355543@fcc.gov> <557AE9E4.5030205@cs.tcd.ie> <D1A0761F.26EE1%richard@shockey.us> <15E9AA29-E9F1-4DA6-ADA4-E201F8F07B7A@brianrosen.net> <2B0F677F0B95454297753F58D4A07FA30279326B72@FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com> <53A932AB-5E5D-41C0-895F-21EC1D4B17D5@brianrosen.net> <2B0F677F0B95454297753F58D4A07FA30279326CB7@FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com> <E6A16181E5FD2F46B962315BB05962D07D3558A5@fcc.gov>, <D1A0FC51.26FA9%richard@shockey.us> <E6A16181E5FD2F46B962315BB05962D07D35C25C@fcc.gov>
In-Reply-To: <E6A16181E5FD2F46B962315BB05962D07D35C25C@fcc.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1257"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cnit/P2C-ZZ0YecJi2kqJRnnkRgWHu3s>
Cc: "cnit@ietf.org" <cnit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..
X-BeenThere: cnit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Calling Name Identity Trust discussion list <cnit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cnit>, <mailto:cnit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cnit/>
List-Post: <mailto:cnit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cnit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cnit>, <mailto:cnit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 18:21:43 -0000

This sounds right.  3GPP IMS standards support both user-provided identity information (the FROM header) and network-provided identity information (the P-Asserted-Identity header).  Both can optionally include a display-name.  

The Originating Identity Presentation (OIP) and Originating Identity Restriction (OIR) services generally govern presentation to the called user of the network-provided identity information.  The network may or may not also restrict (in the case of OIR) presentation of the user-provided identity information.

tim

-----Original Message-----
From: cnit [mailto:cnit-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henning Schulzrinne
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 9:02 AM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: cnit@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..

The VoLTE/IMS experts listening probably know this better, but judging from some quick Googling of sample VoLTE call flows, SIP display name information is already part of the IMS/VoLTE standards, so model #1 (NNI) shouldn't be that hard, and we can then build on that, as you hint at.

I suspect we all agree that the barrier to entry should be minimal. We can discuss, for example, whether a by-reference or by-value mechanism is better, or we need both.

________________________________________
From: Richard Shockey [richard@shockey.us]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 9:29 PM
To: Henning Schulzrinne; Dwight, Timothy M (Tim); Brian Rosen
Cc: philippe.fouquart@orange.com; cnit@ietf.org; Stephen Farrell; Ben Campbell
Subject: Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..

Henning the biggest issue is that any form of advanced CNAM display is not currently applicable to the the mobile access devices. Which are now finally over 50% of the NANP even if you consider BYOD in the enterprise.
Yea that is another use case.

Hence the issue with Apple. This is ultimately a problem with that will have to be coordinated with US GSMA or GSMA generally.

Or IMHO with the the 8th floor on 12th st. It really is a jawboning use.
Tom needs to call Tim Cook or Larry Page and make the ask.

I do reject Brians pretense here. Given the IETF context perfection is actually the enemy of deployment.

I want a charter that is simple and clear.  Header and object. Period.  If that is impossible then Š..

Its time the AD¹s decide.


_______________________________________________
cnit mailing list
cnit@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cnit

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email