RE: [Sip] Updated acr-code

["DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[e-mail]>]

Please note that this document is formally in IESG last call. Therefore any comments that you want to "stick" should also be made to [e-mail] in accordance with the following instructions. That doesn't preclude discussion on this list - just means that they may not be taken into account.

Regards

Keith

The IESG has received a request from the Session Initiation Protocol WG
(sip) to consider the following document:

- 'Rejecting Anonymous Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) '
   <draft-ietf-sip-acr-code-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the [e-mail] mailing lists by 2007-07-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-acr-code-05.txt


IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=14158&rfc_flag=0 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesske, R [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:25 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: AW: [Sip] Updated acr-code
> 
> Dear all,
> I still have a problem that the "header" privacy value is not 
> included.
> Due to the lack of a correct description what header privacy 
> means within RFC3323 my understanding is still that header 
> also includes all headers that should be deleted or 
> anonymised when the "user" privacy values is used.
> 
> And it is also not clear if header includes the "id" privacy or not.
> 
> With regard to this arguments the ACR Response has also to be 
> sent when "header" is used.
> 
> What to do now?
> 
> Also there is a different understanding what is meant by 
> anonymous within the world. That is a regulation dependent 
> issue. So From my understanding the use of the 433 should not 
> to restrictive. If somebody want to use the header within his 
> domain then let him use it.
> That is my understanding.
> 
> So one solution could be that a sentence like based on 
> network policy or regulatory requirements ACR could also 
> apply based on other indications sent like the 'header' private value.
> 
> An other issue is that there should be work started to 
> clarify the use of RFC 3323, 3325, 4244 and others defining 
> privacy values.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Roland
> 
> Deutsche Telekom AG
> T-Com, Zentrum Technik Einführung
> Roland Jesske
> Gateways, Protokolle, Konvergenz, TE33-6 
> Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 1, 64295 Darmstadt, Raum 
> 314(Besucheradresse) Postfach, 64307 Darmstadt (Postanschrift)
> 06151 83-5940 (Tel.)
> 06151 83-4577 (Fax)
> E-Mail: [e-mail]
> http://www.t-com.de
> 
> Registerrechtliche Unternehmensangaben:
> Deutsche Telekom AG
> Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Klaus Zumwinkel (Vorsitzender)
> Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender), Dr. Karl-Gerhard Eick 
> (stellvertretender Vorsitzender), Hamid Akhavan, Timotheus 
> Höttges, L othar Pauly, Thomas Sattelberger
> Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794, Sitz der 
> Gesellschaft: Bonn
> WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE50478376
> ***************************************************************
> Deutsche Telekom AG
> Supervisory Board: Dr. Klaus Zumwinkel (Chairman) Board of 
> Management: René Obermann (Chairman), Dr. Karl-Gerhard Eick 
> (Deputy Chairman), Hamid Akhavan, Timotheus Höttges, Lothar 
> Pauly,  Thomas Sattelberger Commercial register: Amtsgericht 
> Bonn HRB 6794, corporate seat: Bonn
> WEEEreg.no: DE50478376
> 
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Juli 2007 04:16
> > An: IETF SIP List
> > Betreff: [Sip] Updated acr-code
> > 
> > 
> > I've submitted an update to the acr-code draft. You can 
> pick it up at:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-acr-code-05.txt
> > 
> > This draft addresses AD comments raised during AD evaluation. The 
> > primary change is that, previously, the specification 
> indicated that a 
> > P-A-ID header field with an anonymous URI in it would count as an 
> > anonymous request. However, P-A-ID doesn't reflect what the user 
> > wants, which is strictly in the From. Consequently, PAID is really 
> > irrelevant here. So, this condition was removed.
> > 
> > -Jonathan R.
> > -- 
> > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
> > Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 
> > 07054-2711
> > Cisco Systems
> > [e-mail]                              FAX:   [phone]
> > http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: [phone]
> > http://www.cisco.com
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip mailing list  https://www1.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://www1.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://www1.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