Re: [Sip] namespaces in RFC 4411, 4412 and draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00

Dale.Worley@comcast.net wrote:
>    From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
> 
>    Your suggested behavior would seem to violate this.
> 
> That's true.  But I think the RFC-compliant behavior doesn't take into
> account how the incoming request validates that it is authorized to
> use the priority it has claimed.  The practical result is that
> whenever a request crosses a trust boundary, the network operator of
> the network being entered is going to remove any priority request.
> 
> I expect that the rules of the RFC will be followed by any elements
> inside a *network*.  But I expect network ingress/egress elements to
> violate it by default.

If the header is truly only a *request*, with no implication of asserted 
authorization, then there is no reason to remove it.

BUT, unless you can authenticate the sender of the request and authorize 
them to receive the priority they have requested, then there is little 
likelihood that it will be granted.

So the key issue is how authorization is determined. If this is a closed 
military network then I imagine they will have some kind of transitive 
trust that will support this.

But if the goal here is for emergency service workers to obtain priority 
over all sorts of networks, then I can't imagine how it can work.

	Paul

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip