IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Mon, 02 March 2009 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.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 B1ED93A6AE7; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:12:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.545
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 YZ02L4ae55Kg; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:12:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1D6E3A69D5; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:12:01 -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 8.1.291.1; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:12:27 -0500
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:12:26 -0500
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, 'Avasarala Ranjit-A20990' <ranjit@motorola.com>, "sipping@ietf.org" <sipping@ietf.org>, "rucus@ietf.org" <rucus@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:12:25 -0500
Thread-Topic: [Sipping] New Internet Draft for Caller Identity Blocking
Thread-Index: AcmbExpd18YeURo2QKG8Gi9nzIAIBAALuTWQAAKgy7AAAyStAA==
Message-ID: <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C19B9742@mail>
References: <750BBC72E178114F9DC4872EBFF29A5B05F6EC3F@ZMY16EXM66.ds.mot.com> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C19B93BB@mail> <024b01c99b4c$a70c9810$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net>
In-Reply-To: <024b01c99b4c$a70c9810$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net>
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
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:12:02 -0000

Ignoring the syntax differences, even semantically they're different.  One is about indicating spam, the other is about asking for call blocking.  Indicating spam might lead to call blocking, but not the other way around.  For example just because I'm on vacation or don't want to get calls from you in particular, does not mean your call is spam.  It should not affect your reputation, for example.  And semantically the spam one is an indication, whereas the blocking one is a command, fwiw.

Obviously the solution mechanism could be the same for both uses, I suppose. (which is probably more to your point :)

-hadriel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:36 AM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan; 'Avasarala Ranjit-A20990'; sipping@ietf.org;
> rucus@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Sipping] New Internet Draft for Caller Identity Blocking
>
> How is this draft different from previously investigated approaches?
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-niccolini-sipping-spam-feedback-00
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email