IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Victor Pascual Ávila <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com> Tue, 03 March 2009 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.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 7FA3428C102 for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 02:26:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 7pCogRIlw4ap for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 02:26:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949D83A6C14 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 02:26:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 25so538666eya.31 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:26:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qDR3W2U0tdodfY5xtBwhAiccnHpe7Ac9Fj2jewC8dTs=; b=aAWkqMoA+1VjhvNuJKFSr0GveZdwPsWzscKDHZaM27DoFiCcW+ZoCuxxGG8t2b0XXj JUMcrdKWlNncjvDQZh99aZuQXXWvWD6wdBG+JVd4Y6qupcBxuJsSyNjdkMZw5pEdC/Yd 6XJUdpUId2QEZ/LNpnZBJQNdfCAh+jMsCOgqE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=IcTVEAxGSYwAwveh0Yx9Bw9rp1ScaRd/lSFRsHdhrAH0qRhQOHS7UOrRols+1eo8wb iDPnoTBOalarm3CRXVDJmzKHPLThHZ96/DXUW+SyiLax6pTsBvW/N32+G9GjXGpJMYko ceueO462hsTzJRrOPEG7gPS2r4k+NMQGOcOMY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.210.120.7 with SMTP id s7mr5575938ebc.78.1236076016682; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:26:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <49ACF64E.10609@ohlmeier.org>
References: <750BBC72E178114F9DC4872EBFF29A5B05F6EC3F@ZMY16EXM66.ds.mot.com> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C19B93BB@mail> <618e24240903020747w12b97d73r5c2d487457cbf70b@mail.gmail.com> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF0B690458@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <750BBC72E178114F9DC4872EBFF29A5B05FBA3C6@ZMY16EXM66.ds.mot.com> <49ACF64E.10609@ohlmeier.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:26:56 +0100
Message-ID: <618e24240903030226u58c5411btcc4ea1187e573067@mail.gmail.com>
From: Victor Pascual Ávila <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>
To: Nils Ohlmeier <lists@ohlmeier.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 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 10:26:31 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email