Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

There seem to be three levels:

(1) Make existing SIP display name information survive NNI and VoIP-to-TDM translation. The ATIS-SIPForum effort seems to be an appropriate venue for that as it involves no new SIP headers or SIP behavior.

(2) Allow for (but not mandate) signing the display name. We need to determine whether this is just another STIR special case or not. This applies to the (common) case where the signer of the SIP request is also in a position to validate the caller name, using whatever internal policies they may have. (In some cases, this is simply whatever the subscriber typed into a web form, so this isn't perfect, but since the number signing will provide traceability, the FBI and IRS along with HSBC and Microsoft know whom to talk to if a customer of Joe's VoIP Service & Salvage asserts those identities. Trademark law and civil fraud statutes seem to cover that case; the main practical difficulty today is that finding the source of the information is impossible.)

(3) Better caller name information that allows parties other than the carrier to assert additional information.

Does that cover the options?

Henning


________________________________________
From: Richard Shockey [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 9:36 AM
To: Henning Schulzrinne; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..



RS> Well intra enterprise certainly.  There it tends to get pulled from
Active Directory but until we can get the NNI interface deployed its not
working at all for inter enterprise.  We are certainly looking at that for
Phase 2 of the NNI TF.

My goal is some what more modest for a first phase.  Certainly you want
signed extended versions of the display name but one should not create
artificial barriers to non signed data exchanges between service providers
where the security comes from the big yellow wire at Layer 1.  Plus I
still want a straight answer if this proposal is going to have a
requirement for a new SIP header and all the IETF ART pain and suffering
that goes with that. I want the AD¹s to make that demand ( if it is to be
imposed) explicit now.