Re: [stir] Questions about stir-certificates

[Richard Shockey <[e-mail]>]

> 
    > "Partial" and "Gateway" attestations as indications of relative untrustworthiness of the calling number may be usable as filters for secret-sauce analytics and/or post-processing forensic investigation.  IMHO they are not suited for at-a-glance indications of unwanted calling attempts to subscribers.   And, I assume no user, enterprise, or originating or transit service provider will volunteer "Fraudulent" or " SPAM" attestations although they would be undeniably more usable for an at-a-glance decision about whether to accept a call.

RS> You have to remember there are multiple use cases here.  Don’t make the mistake that the Call Validation Display data is strictly directed at the consumer.  There is a strong business case advanced call analytics for inbound call centers especially for financial services utilities here. 

    
    Speaking strictly as a telephony consumer: I see value in *both* the 
    positive and negative indicators. I am inclined to use the negative one 
    when deciding whether to answer the call at all, and the positive one 
    for whether to trust the call for sensitive matters, such as with 
    government agencies and financial institutions.

RS> Agreed but that is ultimately a high policy issue the regulators are looking at now. 

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1013653727266/Shockey%20Consulting%2017-97%20Call%20Authentication%20Trust%20Anchor%20exparte.pdf


    
    This can be coupled with per-number policy at my own end (in my address 
    book) by remembering which numbers have previously received full 
    attestation. That can raise the bar on future calls from the same number.
    
    	Thanks,
    	Paul