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

[Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>]

Ignoring the syntax differences, even semantically they're different.  One is about indicating spam, the other is about asking for call blocking.  Indicating spam might lead to call blocking, but not the other way around.  For example just because I'm on vacation or don't want to get calls from you in particular, does not mean your call is spam.  It should not affect your reputation, for example.  And semantically the spam one is an indication, whereas the blocking one is a command, fwiw.

Obviously the solution mechanism could be the same for both uses, I suppose. (which is probably more to your point :)

-hadriel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:36 AM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan; 'Avasarala Ranjit-A20990'; sipping at ietf.org;
> rucus at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Sipping] New Internet Draft for Caller Identity Blocking
>
> How is this draft different from previously investigated approaches?
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-niccolini-sipping-spam-feedback-00
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>