Re: [Rucus] [Sipping] New Internet Draft for Caller Identity Blocking

"Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Mon, 02 March 2009 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AC128C16D for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:40:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.32
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.279, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VJ7Rm0jPmPhu for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:40:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 858943A6AFA for <rucus@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:40:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Mar 2009 17:40:45 -0000
Received: from a91-154-108-144.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO 4FIL42860) [91.154.108.144] by mail.gmx.net (mp055) with SMTP; 02 Mar 2009 18:40:45 +0100
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18ICa5aYOoIYbWAgA/mQMkff7ZdfHe9C1n1FGkFlM PJUMYL1kgdNURW
From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
To: 'Hadriel Kaplan' <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>, 'Avasarala Ranjit-A20990' <ranjit@motorola.com>, rucus@ietf.org
References: <750BBC72E178114F9DC4872EBFF29A5B05F6EC3F@ZMY16EXM66.ds.mot.com> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C19B93BB@mail> <024b01c99b4c$a70c9810$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C19B9742@mail>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:41:44 +0200
Message-ID: <027101c99b5e$28c9ba70$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C19B9742@mail>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-index: AcmbExpd18YeURo2QKG8Gi9nzIAIBAALuTWQAAKgy7AAAyStAAAA5tdA
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.57
Subject: Re: [Rucus] [Sipping] New Internet Draft for Caller Identity Blocking
X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" <rucus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus>, <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus>
List-Post: <mailto:rucus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus>, <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:40:25 -0000

-- dropping sipping 

>Ignoring the syntax differences, even semantically they're 
>different.  One is about indicating spam, the other is about 
>asking for call blocking.

The reason for asking calls to be blocked is important here.

>  Indicating spam might lead to call 
>blocking, but not the other way around.

Yes, it would be good if something happens when you receive unwanted
communication attempts. 
 

>  For example just 
>because I'm on vacation or don't want to get calls from you in 
>particular, does not mean your call is spam.   It should not 
>affect your reputation, for example.  And semantically the 
>spam one is an indication, whereas the blocking one is a command, fwiw.

When it is purely about configuring authorization policies then the
following mechanism might be more appropriate:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-sipping-spit-policy-01

It re-uses mechanisms we have specified already elsewhere and can be outside
a specific call establishment procedure (which is reasonable also in the
on-vaction example you mentioned). 

A more sensible approach of handling my calls to you when you are on vaction
is to forward my calls to your mailbox rather than blocking them and
dropping them on the floor. Sure, it is your policy what todo with my calls
but ... 

One of the mentioned examples, namely telemarketing, lead me to believe that
this is not about configuring my buddy lists. 

>Obviously the solution mechanism could be the same for both 
>uses, I suppose. (which is probably more to your point :)
>
>-hadriel
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]
>> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:36 AM
>> To: Hadriel Kaplan; 'Avasarala Ranjit-A20990'; sipping@ietf.org; 
>> rucus@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [Sipping] New Internet Draft for Caller 
>Identity Blocking
>>
>> How is this draft different from previously investigated approaches?
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-niccolini-sipping-spam-feedback-00
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>