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

<R.Jesske@telekom.de> Mon, 08 November 2010 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <R.Jesske@telekom.de>
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 661453A677D for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:19:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 E7AigNlZ5b6P for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:19:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tcmail83.telekom.de (tcmail83.telekom.de [62.225.183.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237383A681B for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:19:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from s4de8psaanq.blf.telekom.de (HELO S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.166]) by tcmail81.telekom.de with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2010 16:19:06 +0100
Received: from S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.13]) by S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:18:59 +0100
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:18:54 +0100
Message-ID: <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD406D5D1D4@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <55338E45-63A9-43F2-9983-85252365B73F@acmepacket.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
Thread-Index: Act/VdmnDrQiUFxTTD+W7qJiXyOmdgAAaeLg
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> <55338E45-63A9-43F2-9983-85252365B73F@acmepacket.com>
From: <R.Jesske@telekom.de>
To: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>, <shida@ntt-at.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2010 15:18:59.0757 (UTC) FILETIME=[44C175D0:01CB7F58]
Cc: 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 15:19:31 -0000

Hi Hadriel,
is has also an other reason. When you send from the retargeting SIP Server an call Forwarding (Retargeting) notification in backward direction (181 Response) with an History Info, the target should be marked as private, because the retargeting server has no knowledge about the privacy instructions of the terminating user.

Best Regards

Roland

-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
Von: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Hadriel Kaplan
Gesendet: Montag, 8. November 2010 16:02
An: Shida Schubert
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
Betreff: 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

_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
sipcore@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore