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

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 22:04 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 F420D3A697A for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 14:04:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, 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 nDSW-hse01VW for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 14:04:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5F23A68AE for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 14:04:16 -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 17:04:36 -0500
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 17:04:36 -0500
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Ian Elz <ian_elz@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 17:04:27 -0500
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
Thread-Index: Act/kOmm1nFmNrXeR0WDScjRtm0S8g==
Message-ID: <3F081C03-63B9-4C3C-9BAE-7601ACD6FEC9@acmepacket.com>
References: <708708.88960.qm@web29117.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <708708.88960.qm@web29117.mail.ird.yahoo.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 22:04:18 -0000

Right but isn't that done with the _embedded_ Privacy header in the H-I URI?  I was talking about the Privacy header of the request message itself - that's what I meant by "(I mean a real Privacy header in the message, not an embedded one in a particular HI URI)".  Sorry for the confusion.

-hadriel


On Nov 8, 2010, at 1:17 PM, Ian Elz wrote:

> Hadriel,
> 
> Roland missed one other case in his reply.
> 
> If I divert a call I may want my identity to be private even if the original caller allows his identity to be presented; i.e. I don't want the final destination of the call to know the identity of the diverting party.
> 
> Ian Elz
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hadriel Kaplan" <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
> To: "Shida Schubert" <shida@ntt-at.com>
> Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, 8 November, 2010 3:01:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>