Re: [Sip] RFC 4474 and PSTN

[Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Elwell, John
>
> There seems to be some interest in adding some indicator to the URI or
> to the header field to warn of the limited guarantee of authenticity or
> the opposite (i.e.,lack of such an indicator would mean the guarantee is
> low, i.e., the identity has not been verified).

I haven't thought about this since it was last on the list, and I think I was a proponent of it at that time, but why were we thinking this would ever be set?  I mean if I'm a clid spoofer, why would I ever want to add such a param??  Isn't it like a "spam=yes" flag you're describing, and then expecting potential spammers to set it?  I've forgotten the train of thought which lead to this param as a viable solution.


> I think on this issue it is just a matter of somebody putting things
> together into a draft. I think Dean and/or Adam were the main initiators
> of this proposal - something like a source=pstn parameter.

Or just source=evil. ;)

-hadriel
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip