Re: [Sipping] New Internet Draft for Caller Identity Blocking

Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei@adobe.com> Tue, 03 March 2009 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <hsinnrei@adobe.com>
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8966428C19D for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:57:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.695
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.695 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.603, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 nFE82e0Sd0JH for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:57:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og108.obsmtp.com (exprod6og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DBD93A68C2 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:57:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from source ([192.150.8.22]) by exprod6ob108.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSa1Ti/lsNGxTPR41+uIXqZYcGQQ1zgbQ@postini.com; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:58:07 PST
Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n23Fw0E0021472; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:58:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nacas02.corp.adobe.com (nacas02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.100]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n23Fvxiq015996; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:57:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from excas02.corp.adobe.com (10.8.188.212) by nacas02.corp.adobe.com (10.8.189.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.336.0; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:57:59 -0800
Received: from nambx05.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.124]) by excas02.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.188.212]) with mapi; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:57:58 -0800
From: Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei@adobe.com>
To: Victor Pascual Ávila <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>, Nils Ohlmeier <lists@ohlmeier.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:57:57 -0800
Thread-Topic: [Sipping] New Internet Draft for Caller Identity Blocking
Thread-Index: Acmb6ppjJ+CbCiSPQpO5cg8rnhrxXQALjdvH
Message-ID: <C5D2AFA5.BC31%hsinnrei@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <618e24240903030226u58c5411btcc4ea1187e573067@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C5D2AFA5BC31hsinnreiadobecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "sipping@ietf.org" <sipping@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sipping] New Internet Draft for Caller Identity Blocking
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:57:45 -0000

>I did not follow the discussion on
>draft-niccolini-sipping-spam-feedback.
>Has this work been discontinued?

I agree with this sentiment (and have not followed the discussions either).

The biggest problem to address in public telephone networks are IMO unwanted telemarketing calls and various fund driving calls.
Voice spam calls can be detected by the network operator by their very short duration, since most called parties just hang up.

So is a  "correct" blocking protocol the most effective tool?
Rushing to write one more protocol solution before comparing the alternatives based on measurements...

On a related topic: Such discussions may be better conducted on a Wiki, if the IETF RAI
would extend our toolset beyond the mid 90's technology: Email and RFC .txt I-D only.

Henry

On 3/3/09 4:26 AM, "Victor Pascual Ávila" <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Nils,

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Nils Ohlmeier <lists@ohlmeier.org> wrote:
> why can't we use the draft
> Hannes mentioned before (we only need to extend it to support temporary
> blocking/blacklisting)?
> By pressing exactly the same "red blocking button" on the user interface of
> his device the UA would then simply reject or terminate the call (by sending
> 4xx or BYE) and send a NOTIFY to his blocking/spam server immediately.
> Besides the slight burden of creating two transactions, this would have the
> advantage of being able to route the notification seperately from the
> messages realted to the call.

You are right-- being able to route the feedback information
separately from the call could be an advantage.

I did not follow the discussion on
draft-niccolini-sipping-spam-feedback. Has this work been
discontinued?

Cheers,
--
Victor Pascual Ávila
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP