Re: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-spam-01 - general

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

I think we beat the other issues to death, where, if I may say so, your opinion seems to be on the rough side of the consensus.


For the 'type' designation, the list is motivated by the real-life observation that robocalls come in, to use your term, shades of annoying. The current strategy in many households is not to answer any calls where the caller name isn't a family member, which is not ideal. (For example, your bank robot may be calling you to alert you to a suspicious charge on your debit card.) Thus arose the notion of labeling calls that are robocalls (or, more generally, non-personal calls) with more granularity. Otherwise, you end up either rejecting or labeling all non-personal calls or only fraudulent "IRS scam" calls.


The list of labels, as noted in the acknowledgments section of the draft, was compiled by members of the Robocall Strike Force that met last year, so this is not my personal invention. Task force members were struggling with the issue I mentioned above, where a simple binary good/bad indicator is likely to be either over-inclusive or under-inclusive for many called parties.


As noted, you can implement a simple "spam-or-not" mechanism using only the type='spam' catch-all, if that's your implementation preference.


[TOLGA] I think what you are describing here gets a bit out of the “annoying calls” category. It is more related with “call categorization in general”. Do we really want to tackle such a broad topic in this draft? I thought the raison d’etre is dealing with robocalls, spam. I personally would prefer to keep focus on these aspects.




Henning