IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45193A67B2 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:01:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.882
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.882 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6]
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 4Z56OaC6m7fn for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A436E3A677D for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:01:42 -0500
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:01:42 -0500
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:01:39 -0500
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
Thread-Index: Act/VdmnDrQiUFxTTD+W7qJiXyOmdg==
Message-ID: <55338E45-63A9-43F2-9983-85252365B73F@acmepacket.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0235546D2F@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <A5DC4410-2B76-4EC6-B39A-1FFF5F04B853@ntt-at.com> <AANLkTikXeBRvTaDg8ZX+TsqG_ZL24FUiQFf2se5UAgcm@mail.gmail.com> <4CD7CF13.5000005@cisco.com> <A5E1BEC3-6E39-4247-A826-B36E4AEB9B31@ntt-at.com>
In-Reply-To: <A5E1BEC3-6E39-4247-A826-B36E4AEB9B31@ntt-at.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:01:22 -0000

On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:01 AM, Shida Schubert wrote:

> Privacy:none is used when caller (UAC) wants his/her identity delivered
> to the destination (callee) despite the existence of privacy service, but
> with regards to H-I, when does it ever contain the URI that identifies the
> caller (UAC) ?
> I agree that privacy:none will be valid if we can find a situation where
> URI of UA will be one of the hi-entry but my imagination is not strong
> enough to see this.

But that also begs the question of why we need a Privacy header of "history" to begin with. (I mean a real Privacy header in the message, not an embedded one in a particular HI URI)

The only case I could imagine for such things is that the caller doesn't want their domain known about.  I.e., I make an anonymous call from my SIP phone through my corporate SIP proxy, and my SIP phone sets "Privacy: history" so that Acme Packet's anonymization proxy removes "acmepacket.com" from any H-Is, before sending it out our SIP trunk, etc.

-hadriel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email