[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Simple] tel URIs in common policy

I haven't been following common policy closely for awhile, so I may put my foot in my mouth here. But anyway...

You have mentioned the desire to ignore the difference between sip and sips. This probably makes sense, at least most of the time. (But not always - you may only want to grant full access to your presence state, with sensitive info, over a sips connection.)

Also, schemes are more than just distinct namespaces. There are significant differences from scheme to scheme about how equivalence of names is defined. Tel URIs must be compared differently for equivalence than sip (user=ip) URIs. Separator characters must be ignored, and parameters must be properly compared. (e.g. phone-context).

Just as sip and sips URIs might be considered equivalent for purposes of identity equivalence, so may tel and sip/sips;user=phone. It seems many people prefer to use sip URIs for phone numbers, using whatever domain name is handy for them. This can cause a huge mess in determining equivalence. Technically one should not consider to sip URIs with different domains to be equivalent even if they both seem to represent the same phone number, and it gives me heartburn to suggest doing so, but pragmatically I think it must probably be supported. Specifically, I think all the following need to be considered equivalent:

	tel:+1-555-987-6543
	tel:+15559876543
	sip:+1(555)987.6543 at foo.com;user=phone
	sip:+15.55.98.76.543 at bar.net;user=phone

If we don't get this right, people will end up not being able to set policy for callers without understanding how the caller is identified from each different device he uses. If you end up needing a call log to figure out how your callers are identified before you can authorize them, then the system will be nearly unusable.

We also talked last week about wildcarding. I think there will be demand/need for this. Things like:

	tel:+1-900-nnn-nnnn

Even this assumes that global form numbers are being used. Various forms of dial strings make more of a mess. But lets not discuss that for now.

	Paul

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
In a side conversation, Hannes suggested a solution to the tel URI problem we discussed during the WG meeting, akin to what's done in the geopriv coordinate system parameter, namely to have a parameter that identifies the scheme, as in

<one scheme="tel" id="+1-212-555-1234"/>

or

<one scheme="sip" id="alice at example.com"/>

if you really only want to match SIP identity sip:alice at example.com.

The default with no scheme parameter is "matches any user at domain scheme".

In order to complete finishing the section of the spec, I'd value quick feedback on the idea.

Henning

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple


_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple