Re: [stir] Call Forward/Follow-me

Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com> Fri, 07 June 2013 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6280421F9712 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 11:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gn0FelqJYuye for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 11:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9351E21F96E4 for <stir@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 11:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id n12so1578168wgh.1 for <stir@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BmtcY60mPngjDXcp0wN1Id9u1kHRVk7QVSQr9KW2gWc=; b=lPCitb9UOq7P4vmhLWuZ7kQbUJU/jxcKB67tP7lXkJIHlblNy3c0NVuhNmTtZO7Erp 8YhEVyxUmgxnElx7TYmEhtv6DfbiOezuiAeMgKbDME2+hM7rGG82usfMpKMwNLakwElk GWWpizHzxacJEGh+gIdGFVmnhxgYSUBaLTy5iT33rLLogQSzhiNXfZ/R/IJviPdsym8D hdDWNkX0+S0l7+nSfoPAz0OtN3/DVVUinUxHyhAj9Xxz+bJRVTOBkzSjOJV/ZYbzUdlm wvARxcsvwg0WF+f8EF0hhTEg3YU97UPOFaIZhZtQjqj9Nwu/MolrK9raniGgX3kc9qZB cPiw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.181.11.194 with SMTP id ek2mr2189829wid.27.1370629396707; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.83.205 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 11:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5DDB5576-CAEF-453C-8C90-0C6709DAD84F@neustar.biz>
References: <5DDB5576-CAEF-453C-8C90-0C6709DAD84F@neustar.biz>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:23:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKhHsXGzQf7EAjiEj78YbmA5xiZVacGtPg-G5YKUup==YkE0sA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
To: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043bdee44f3ffa04de948615"
Cc: "stir@ietf.org" <stir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [stir] Call Forward/Follow-me
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stir>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 18:23:20 -0000

I think that History-Info should be the solution going forward, certainly
for SIP networks.

- Alan -


On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Rosen, Brian <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>wrote:

> A problem that has been noted is PBXs and other services that implement
> Call Forward and Follow-me by spoofing From to be the original caller when
> they originate a call from the PBX to the ultimate destination.  They do
> this so that the called party sees the original caller when they get the
> call.
>
> If we outlaw spoofing, these services wouldn't be able to do that.  They
> would have to use History or other headers to pass the original calling
> party number.
>
> I believe that we can't continue to allow this kind of spoofing.  There
> are other headers which are appropriate for use.
>
> One of the arguments given is that in older systems such as POTS or 2G/3G,
> there is no way to get caller ID to show data from the other headers.  I
> think we have to accept such limitations.  Newer systems would not have
> that problem of course.
>
> While it may be unfortunate that something like forward or follow-me
> doesn't work as well as it did, I think that it's the right tradeoff.
>
> Please note that there are another class of calling party number spoofing
> circumstances we CAN do something about.  Suppose a doctor wants to place a
> call on her mobile that appears to come from her office number.  In that
> case the doctor can authorize the service that arranges that call.  They
> can get the cert for the office number and authorize the service to place
> calls with that number by giving them a cert for that authorization.  This
> also works for, as an example, a call center placing calls for an
> enterprise.
>
> The difference is, of course, that the "spoofed" number is a number
> delegated to the entity spoofing, rather than the forward/follow me case
> where the spoofed number is the calling party and the entity spoofing is
> authorized by the called party.
>
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> stir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>