[Rucus] comments on draft-niccolini-sipping-spam-feedback-00

[Jonathan Rosenberg <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for writing this, its a good topic to discuss.

One thing that wasn't clear; what is the benefit of signaling something 
as spam to my proxy, as opposed to just putting the sender on a black 
list. We have mechanisms defined already for that, for example. I 
suspect its around sharing of the spam classification with other users 
in the domain. Its worth discussing this.

Seems easier if you just send the entire sip message as content rather 
than picking apart pieces of it.

The mechanism is clearly intended to be between a UA and a proxy in its 
own domain; however I didn't find that stated till much deeper in the 
document. This should be clear up front.

In terms of specific protocols, I think SUB/NOT is a very poor choice. 
The proxy will require a subscription to EVERY UA, and the events will 
be infrequent. This means a lot of overhead for little data. I think you 
are much better off with an asynchronous push, either PUBLISH or even 
non-sip. Maybe a REST interface or something.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.


-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   499 Thornall St.
Cisco Fellow                                   Edison, NJ 08837
Cisco, Voice Technology Group
[e-mail]
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: [phone]
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________
Rucus mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus