Re: [Sip] Signing P-Asserted-Identity

["Elwell, John" <[e-mail]>]

Cullen,

Have you read draft-elwell-sip-e2e-identity-important? I think you will
find that gives a number of reasonable use cases.

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> Sent: 15 July 2008 17:23
> To: SIP List
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Signing P-Asserted-Identity
> 
> 
> On Jul 14, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> So far, though, it's mostly just been complaints about why anyone  
> >> would need anything other than 4474.  Now if we could only have  
> >> gotten such a real-world deployment experience requirement before  
> >> moving 4474 to PS...
> >>
> >
> > Indeed.
> 
> There are implementations of 4474 around and were long before it  
> became and RFC but ignoring that ...
> 
> I asked some folks on this thread a few years ago for an 
> example of a  
> real deployment where it would not be possible to use 4474 as 
> long as  
> the SBC implemented 4474. I'm still waiting for an example of 
> where it  
> actually is broken. Hadriel  hypothesized a type of situation 
> where it  
> could be broken. That was the case where service provider A passed  
> call to B who passed call C and they were not using E.164 
> numbers but  
> were using email style addresses and the one in the middle wanted to  
> do media steering or restrict what codecs where allowed.
> 
> Cullen <with my individual contributor hat on>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
> Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip
> 
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip